Home
» Intelligent Design » OOL Researchers: No Soup for You!!
OOL Researchers: No Soup for You!!
| February 6, 2010 | Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design |
For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a ‘primordial soup’ of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the ‘soup’ theory has been over turned in a pioneering paper in BioEssays which claims it was the Earth’s chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life.
Rest of the story here.
47 Responses to OOL Researchers: No Soup for You!!
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Dr Giem,
Thank you for the follow up. The other article does have a slightly larger discussion of the formation of the requisite monomers, but the focus is on the formation of pi-systems in general.
The energetic argument is that UV and ZnS are going to help generate ring shaped molecules that can survive UV quite well. and that stacked rings survive even better. That is not specific to any particular ring shaped molecule.
The paper references the creation of formate, makes an argument for the formation of ammonium by ZnS, and then makes hopeful noises that formate and ammonium will combine to foramide, and then a diverse assortment of important molecules will result. I think there is still a lot of ‘connecting the dots’ to be done – that is why it is a hypothesis paper.
Zeroseven:
“It refers to the origin of species from a common ancestor. You need the ancestor. Your criticism is somewhat ironic given ID’s professed lack of interest in the identity of the designer”
I know what it says, but it still lacks substance and a basis in reality. If it says “the Origin of Species from a common ancestor” it still begs the question – the ancestor needs an origin. If the original ancestor cannot be explained through a natural process (which I don’t believe it can), I can’t really assume that it is necessary for the entire process of evolution from a common ancestor to be naturalistic. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t, it just means that I can’t start with that assumption. I must start with something else – perhaps not making any assumptions either way would be a better place to begin. It seems that Darwinian ToE starts from the top and works backwards, which works in the here and now I suppose, but it may not work for it in considering OOL issues. It lacks substance because of the naturalistic assumptions.
You are correct that ID as a science is not interested in the identity of the designer. However, this is not to say that ID advocates are not interested, but they use other means apart from scientific rational to determine that identity.
It’s a poor comparison. The identity of the designer is not the same as the origin of the first life. We have evidence that points to design, but not to the designer. Even staunch Darwinists admit that there is at least an appearance of design, yet deny the designer. So they still make an inference to design, while denying that there is a designer. Why is that? It seems that design inferences, and design language in science is natural. We naturally make the assumption that biological systems are purposeful. Yet such assumptions do not lead all scientists to determine the identity of the designer – most, in-fact, deny that any designer exists. Yet it is entirely reasonable (and natural) to infer design without identifying a designer.
It is not entirely reasonable to infer natural causes acting without purpose upon systems for which one would naturally make a design inference. Hence, it is more reasonable and parsimonious to infer design than it is to infer naturalism alone as the cause of complex biological systems.
Darwin’s theory went against the natural inclination of scientists before him to infer design because biology appears designed.
It seems this point needs to continually be explained on this forum.
Nakashima-san,
I have now read the other article. Part of it describes a computer model where UV light breaks down competing polymers leading to an excess of RNA and/or DNA. I would be more impressed with actual experiments showing this. They shouldn’t be too hard, or otherwise we can’t obtain large amounts of RNA to fuel an RNA world.
You are right that this article details some reactions. Near as I can tell, this pretty much sums it up:
That’s not much, and it particularly not much when one compares it to Miller-Urey apparati. This seems to be one step forward and two steps back to me.
You write about this being a hypothetical paper, and that there is a lot of “connecting the dots” to be done. I agree that much of what the paper presents can be fairly characterized as “hopeful noises”.
One remark struck me as interesting:
Reference 404 is The Origin of Species by C. Darwin. I find it fascinating that Behe is obviously being quoted (“Irreducible complexity”) but is not referenced. It’s great that there is this much message control.
But in addition, I am fascinated that irreducible complexity can be refuted simply by suggesting that there was a simpler function for which the assembly in question was selected. No need to prove the simpler function, or even show experimental evidence that the function actually can be selected for. The mere suggestion is enough. Statements like this persuade me that Cornelius Hunter is right; the choice to disregard Behe is being made for metaphysical reasons, not scientific ones.
JPCollado (#30),
You’re welcome.
Nakashima-san,
P. S. If you look at the orchestra members for the Tokyo Phil, you might be able to guess the (well, at least a major) reason for my recommendation.
Dr Giem,
I agree that the use of the term irreducible complexity in that place was ironic, note the scare quotes. However, Mulkidjanian immediately above that spot makes reference to papers by Trevors and Abel in completely serious consideration of their ideas.
You quote from the beginning of the section to which I wished to draw your attention. Here is a quote from the end of that section.
Besides reducing organic compounds and catalysing condensation reactions, semiconductors can drive the photoreduction of dinitrogen to ammonium. This reaction has been demonstrated with preparations of CdS [280] and TiO2 [281-284]. The photoreducing capacity of ZnS is higher than that of CdS and TiO2 [154,190], and therefore one would expect that primordial ZnS systems were capable of reducing dinitrogen to ammonium as well, thus complementing the ammonium content of hydrothermal fluids. The interaction of formate, produced upon CO2 reduction, with ammonium could yield formamide, which could serve as a universal building block for the (photocatalyzed) synthesis of both nucleobases and amino acids [285].
Ref 285 is to
Saladino R, Crestini C, Ciciriello F, Costanzo G, Di Mauro E: Formamide chemistry and the origin of informational polymers.
Chem Biodivers 2007, 4(4):694-720
It seems that Miller-Urey type experiments have been re-run under atmospheres similar to those considered in the Zinc World papers. I haven’t been able to find an online reference, but here is an extract from the Scientific American reporting:
Miller, along with his colleague Harold Urey, used a sparking device to mimic a lightning storm on early Earth. Their experiment produced a brown broth rich in amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. The disclosure made the pages of national magazines and showed that theories about the origin of life could actually be tested in the laboratory.
But the Miller-Urey results were later questioned: It turns out that the gases he used (a reactive mixture of methane and ammonia) did not exist in large amounts on early Earth. Scientists now believe the primeval atmosphere contained an inert mix of carbon dioxide and nitrogen—a change that made a world of difference.
When Miller repeated the experiment using the correct combo in 1983, the brown broth failed to materialize. Instead, the mix created a colorless brew, containing few amino acids. It seemed to refute a long-cherished icon of evolution—and creationists quickly seized on it as supposed evidence of evolution’s wobbly foundations.
But Bada’s repeat of the experiment—armed with a new insight—seems likely to turn the tables once again.
Bada discovered that the reactions were producing chemicals called nitrites, which destroy amino acids as quickly as they form. They were also turning the water acidic—which prevents amino acids from forming. Yet primitive Earth would have contained iron and carbonate minerals that neutralized nitrites and acids. So Bada added chemicals to the experiment to duplicate these functions. When he reran it, he still got the same watery liquid as Miller did in 1983, but this time it was chock-full of amino acids. Bada presented his results this week at the American Chemical Society annual meeting in Chicago.
So it would seem that while the Zinc Wolrd hypothesis is more interested in establishing the prerequisites for RNA and the general RNA World scenario, these Miller-Urey results support the idea that when the RNA becomes available abiotically, the amino acids will be there to interact with them.
Paul Giem: “Statements like this persuade me that Cornelius Hunter is right; the choice to disregard Behe is being made for metaphysical reasons, not scientific ones.”
Incidentally, I’ve encountered the same insidious attitude early on in my studies wrt book of Daniel (again) where there is much common ground shared with the debate over origins. Hunter’s sentiments find excellent expression in the great 19th century scholar, Edward B. Pusey, when he wrote, whilst contending against the then prevailing rationalism of the day, that:
In the end, it is really all a matter over metaphysic and not so much about the finer details.
Nakashima-san (#36)
Your extended quote noted that CdS and TiO2 could reduce nitrogen to ammonia, and suggested that ZnS should be able to do so also. If so, formamide might be able to produce the amino acids necessary to produce complicated proteins, as well as RNA and DNA.
To me, this should all be labeled speculation; fascinating for those who believe there must be a pathway to life but who don’t know what it is. To those of us who need solid evidence for (unguided) abiogenesis before we can believe it, this does not qualify as such evidence.
You reference Dr. Bada, who apparently presented a paper that has just recently come out. I’d like to see the paper. However, there is a problem with Bada’s scenario helping the ZnS world. The ZnS world is supposed to originate in the lateral expanses of a hot-water spring such as we have in Yellowstone National Park here in the USA. Bada’s reactions, assuming that they are as fabulously productive as reported, require some kind of lightning-like discharge. The center of a volcanic spring seems unlikely to sustain lightning strikes often enough that its water would be significantly rich in such things as amino acids. It seems the this would be even less likely to be the case when the ZnS-containing part of the springs is being significantly irradiated by UV light.
This method of argument seems to me to be like arguing that since here and there in some woods one can find a flat stone, that one can drive an automobile through the woods on a pavement of flat stone. The conclusion requires more faith than I have.
JPCollado (#37)
I agree. You probably noted that I quoted the Pusey passage in Chapter 4, along with a long passage from the other side that said essentially the same thing. A lot of comments that masquerade as science or the results of scholarship are really products of a worldview choice that then worked its way through the data, and the result is not unsurprisingly compatible with the original worldview.
I do think that one can do science without worldview considerations swamping the science, just as one can do scholarly Biblical research without worldview considerations swamping the data. But it requires a humility and honesty that aren’t instinctive to humankind.
Dr Giem,
I think your caution is appropriate. The papers proposing the Zinc World are clearly labelled hypothesis.
I think Bada’s volcano/lightning work was assuming that volcanos create their own lightning, but I’m also under the impression that most Miller-Urey style experiments are relatively agnostic as to the source of the energy. It will all be settled by experiment, eventually.
Nakashima-san,
You’re probably right regarding Bada (and Miller for that matter); volcanic eruptions, such as those at Mt. St. Helens in the U.S. and Pinatubo in the Philippines can produce their own lightning. Whether it is quantitatively enough to do the work attributed to it is a different question, but it’s a start.
What I was commenting on was not so much Bada’s scenario as the attempt to combine this with the ZnS world. A volcanic spring, such as we have in Yellowstone, appears to be incompatible with an actual volcanic erupttion. If Yellowstone blows, it is pretty certain that Minerva Terrace will be no more.
An experiment cannot be agnostic as to the source of energy. One has to use electrical discharge, or UV, or some other source, or one will simply not get any significant chemical reactions.
Perhaps your most important statement is that “It will all be settled by experiment, eventually.” i wish. Robert Shapiro, one of the leading researchers into the origin of life, wrote a brutally honest book called Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. On p. 130 he wrote,
With that attitude, it will never be settled by experiment. Shapiro indicates that there are others like him.
I like Shapiro, at least what I know from his writing. He is knowledgeable, witty, writes in a clear style, and rarely plays favorites, and when he does, he clearly labels it as such. And I like his honesty as to where he is coming from. But his comment above leads me to believe that this will never be settled by experiment, because the commitment comes before the research. Cornelius Hunter was right.
Paul Giem @41, quoting Shapiro:
Maybe your edition of Shapiro’s book doesn’t contain the next sentence:
“We are far from that state now.”
As I read it, Shapiro does not express the attitude of despair that you have proposed. Indeed, some in the scientific community may think we are even farther from that state (“when all reasonable chemical experiments … have failed unequivocally.”) I see no overarching sign of discouragement about pursuing the quest for plausible scenarios for the origins of life forms.
Plausible scenarios, entailing experimentally testable hypotheses are all that science can be expected to generate.
Nothing has ever been “settled” in science, and the idea that there should be anything “settled” is a misunderstanding of the scientific enterprise.
Adel DiBagno (#42),
I don’t actually have the book. I read it in the library. Your quotation of the next sentence is correct. I am not stating, and do not wish to imply, that Shapiro does, or did, express despair. It is misreading me to state that I proposed or propose that. I am merely pointing out his commitment, which I believe he expressed honestly.
Look, none of the conditions he raised are fulfilled. We haven’t even explored thoroughly our own little corner of the galaxy, let alone all the galaxies in the universe. It is doubtful we ever will. The origin of life might be narrowed down to a half a billion years by the standard chronology, but it is doubtful that we can do significantly better. And depending on how you determine reasonable and unequivocal, it is doubtful that we will ever run all reasonable experiments, let alone that they will all fail unequivocally. So not only are we not there yet, but we will probably not get there in the reasonably foreseeable future.
But I would ask where the weight of evidence is. And I would say that someone with the commitment that Shapiro has expressed might not be the person I would want to make the choice I must, at times, act on at present, regardless of his expertise.
I understand all about the foibles of science. In medicine, there are all kinds of controversies about what is the best treatment for congestive heart failure, for example. But sooner or later one has to decide either to prescribe furosemide, or lisinopril, or some other drug, or all three, or not. Life does not always allow us to do some more study. The job of living is the job of deciding, and following the decision with action, based on incomplete and inaccurate information. Right now it looks to me like spontaneous generation is a loser based on the scientific evidence. Therefore it seems reasonable to explore various theories of the intelligently assisted origin of life, and their ramifications for my behavior.
I could be wrong. But arguing that I could be wrong won’t impress me much. Showing me data that is more compatible with me being wrong than right would impress me far more.
Paul Giem @43,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. You said:
You are entitled to your opinion. If you would care to list various theories of intelligently assisted origin of life and the persons investigating them, I would be interested.
I assume you mean your moral behavior. If so, I think I understand where you’re coming from with regard to the impact of such theories on your moral behavior. But I don’t see how scientific theories about abiogenesis are necessarily relevant to anyone else’s moral behavior, anymore than are scientific theories about astrophysics.
You are entitled to your own judgment on such matters. In my experience, what it takes to convince someone that she/he is wrong depends on how important it is to that person to hold on to her/his conviction of being right. I admit to being a victim of that affliction.
Adel (#44),
Thank you in turn for your thoughtful response. I will try to respond to several of your comments and questions.
You said,
One general theory is that all it takes to create life from inorganic molecules is ordinary human intelligence and ingenuity, along with the usual laws of nature and chance (whether ordinary human intelligence and ingenuity are outside of nature will be left as an open question). Several research teams are currently working on this theory, the most notable being that headed by Craig Venter. Many are convinced that one or more of these teams will succeed; I am not so sure. But it is an active area of research.
Another hypothesis is that it takes superhuman intelligence and/or ingenuity to create life. This is difficult to test directly by humans except for falsifiability (which makes it scientific?), but some stories of resurrection could be considered positive evidence for it.
You say,
Perhaps you are right that scientific theories about abiogenesis have nothing directly to say about one’s moral behavior. But if one translates those scientific theories into history, which is commonly done, it conflicts with certain other historical statements which tends to undercut the moral authority of certain prescriptive statements coming from the same source(s). Thus one’s behavior might be influenced by a long and complex but nevertheless causal chain starting with (unassisted) abiogenesis or the lack thereof.
You say,
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think that the unraveling of the AGW movement provides an apt illustration. And I agree that I am at risk for that, and try to counter it with the requirement that I make unambiguous predictions and rigorously (well, as rigorously as possible) test them. One of those tests is supposedly being completed within the next 2 weeks. If I can, I’ll let you know how it comes out.
Dr Giem,
To your #45:
To my request for a list of theories about intelligently assisted origin of life, you answered,
I agree that there is some research along these lines, but I don’t find a “theory” driving such efforts. Looks more like an engineering feat to me, akin to sending humans to Mars. My concept of a theory is like this, quoted from Wikipedia:
You know the kind of thing I mean: the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution, etc.
Yes. A hypothesis. Not a theory.
You continued,
I enjoyed this comment, because it illustrates a basic difference between us with respect to educational backgrounds and attitudes about relationships between religion and science. I was raised a Roman Catholic, in an Old World tradition, whereas you, judging from comments you have posted on this site and on your blog, were brought up to be a biblical literalist, and so you remain. (If I have judged incorrectly, I would like to be corrected.)
As you know, we Catholics are content to accept the Church’s authority and tradition in theological matters. (We are not dealing with empirical matters here; we are dealing with matters of faith.) So we take Revelation as a grand parable for our edification, not as an infallible history. Nor do we feel a need for Natural Theology to prove the existence of God. We are comfortable with the notion that God ’s creation is perfectly capable of generating life and all of life’s diversity without periodic (miraculous) intervention. Consequently, we do not feel threatened by naturalistic science. On the contrary, we embrace it as a manifestation of God’s love for his creatures.
I tell you these things just to provide a different perspective, not to start another Thirty Years’ War!
Please do so. If you like, you can email me at:
[email protected]
Dr Giem,
An experiment cannot be agnostic as to the source of energy. One has to use electrical discharge, or UV, or some other source, or one will simply not get any significant chemical reactions.
Sorry if I was not clear, I meant agnostic as to which source (UV, lightning, radiation, etc.) but assuming there was a source.
It appears to me that the Zinc World hypothesis is that the zinc sulfide deposits upon which RNA might form are the direct result of massive vulcanism, such as might also create lightning discharges in the atmosphere. Since these formations are many kilometers across, it could be that amino acids created in on place would be transported to other locations by rain or other water movements. Note also that while this hypothesis restricts where life might have started to some kinds of coastlines, there was a lot more coastline back then! Large continental blocks had not formed yet.
I think Adel DiBagno has answered your quote of Shapiro well enough. I will note though, that some scientists are quite wedded to their research agendas and have a hard time backing down from them even when the evidence starts to mount against them. Shapiro himself on metabolism first OOL is an example, as is Rubens on the “birds are not dinosaurs” issue. Personally, I see these more as ego commitments than philosophical commitments.