Revisiting the Theory Of Abiogenesis (The Origin Of Life) And Why Creationists Hate It

The theory of Abiogenesis (which is often erroneously conflated with the theory of evolution) has been problematical for years. What is sought is a basic explanation for how fundamentally non-living matter could acquire the properties and attributes of life, including being able to reproduce.   For a short video presentation, go to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=W3ceg--uQKM

In principle this isn't that remarkable a stretch, since we already know there exist living entities at the "margins" - the viruses- which display no attributes of life until they infect a host. Once in a host, they can appropriate its cell machinery to churn out billions of copies of themselves.

All of this, of course, can be done without appeal to supernatural agency.

Enter now an Aussie crackpot named Ken Ham whose Wikipedia profile discloses: "a former president of Answers in Genesis, a creationist apologetics organization that operates the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter. Ham advocates biblical literalism, accepting the Book of Genesis creation narrative as historical fact and believing the universe and the Earth were created together approximately 6,000 years ago."

Naturally such a bozo would no more be  able to process or accept abiogenesis than Darwinian evolution -   since it renders his biblical cartoon deity redundant.  Moreover, Ham remains upset that Neil deGrasse Tyson dared suggest life on earth started without the help of God, in one COSMOS episode years ago. All Tyson did is honestly state that the very origins of life “are not yet understood”. Because abiogenesis has yet to turn up any verifiable results—not that they have claimed any are verifiable—AiG is calling that evidence of a clear flaw. But what’s clear is that Tyson isn’t just a threat to creationists. Their big target is the reputation of science.

AiG  seeks to discredit the underlying biological science, using this standard trope:

“Abiogenesis has never been observed in experimental biology and violates the most fundamental law in biology, the law of  biogenesis. Nevertheless, the authors of the review are confident there was a naturalistic chemical origin for life.” [Biogenesis is the natural law that life comes from reproduction by living things].

However,  in a remarkable find published in The New Scientist (Vol. 209, No. 2794, p. 11) some years ago, two investigators: Kunikho Kaneko and Atsushi Kamimura, made a remarkable breakthrough in devising a testable model that is able to replicate the Abiogenesis process. The two basically solved the problem of how a lipid-coated proto-cell can divide into two (displaying reproduction) when the genetic material replicates. Recall in an earlier blog post where I showed the hypothetical proto-cell reaction wherein a self-sustaining coacervate droplet can use one or two basic reactions involving adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and adenosine diphosphate:

L*M + R + ADP + P -> R + L + M + ATP

ATP + X + Y + X*Y -> ADP + X*Y + X*Y + P

In the above, L*M is some large, indeterminate, energy-rich compound that could serve as ‘food’. Whatever the specific form, it’s conceived here to have two major parts capable of being broken to liberate energy. Compound R is perhaps a protenoid or lipid-coated proto-cell, but in any case able to act on L*M to decompose it. The problem with this earlier hypothesis was that such lipid-coated proto-cells lack the machinery to allow for easy division.

Kaneko and Kamimura solved this by taking their inspiration (for their model) from living things in which DNA and RNA code for proteins and the proteins catalyse replication of the genetic material. This goes back to biochemist Jacque Monod's concept that the organism is a self-constructing machine. Its macroscopic structure is not imposed upon it by outside forces, instead it shapes itself autonomously by dint of constructive internal (chemical) interactions. 

 For example, there is the Krebs cycle for aerobic metabolism, whose pathway  is:

CH2 COOH-coenzyme A +  2 H2O ->   2 CO2  +8 (e- + H+) + coenzyme A

possessing a self-catalytic feature in that intermediate products necessary for the cycle to occur are generated by the cycle itself. In this case, Oxalo-acetic acid combines with acetic acid to begin the cycle and is regenerated from malic acid at the end of the cycle.

Like a machine, every organism, down to the very ‘simplest’ (e.g. amoeba) , constitutes a coherent and integrated functional unit. Clearly enough, the functional coherence of so complex a chemical machine, which is autonomous as well, calls for a cybernetic system governing and controlling the chemical activity at numerous points

 Thus in the Kaneko- Kamimura model one has a self-perpetuating system in which a cluster of two types of molecules catalyse replication for one another while also demonstrating rudimentary cell division.

In the Kaneko - Kamimura  (K-K) model, as with DNA, the genetic material replicates much more slowly than the other cluster molecules but also takes longer to degrade, so it enables lots of the other molecules to accumulate. Following replication of the heredity carrier the copies drift apart while the molecules between them break down automatically creating two separate entities (see image).

This was  and remains an exciting breakthrough but some further investigations are needed, specifically ways to circumvent the problem that (in real life) membrane lipids around an RNA molecule don't typically catalyse RNA replication. However, this isn't insurmountable, because all one need do (theoretically) is replace the lipids with hydrophobic peptides.  (In a future post I will explore how modern physics is helping to address this problem).

Basically what the K-K experiments show is that while abiogenesis hasn’t been directly observed it does provide  a materialist model that can account for it in a peripheral way. Since such a materialist model exists, it means that all supernatural explanations become redundant. If one therefore continues to use them, he commits the fallacy of ignotum per ignotius.  That is,  “seeking to explain the not understood by the less well understood.”

Thus to claim abiogenesis “has not been observed” (directly) – which is partially true, and then to say this proves the creation story -  is something that would even raise the eyebrows of an intelligent  kindergartner . Indeed it not only commits the fallacy of ignotum per ignotius, but also the fallacy of circular reasoning – since AiG and Ham are basically claiming that which they must set out to prove independently. Even if nothing existed for abiogenesis, they would be obliged to prove supernatural creation.   It simply isn't cricket to try to use a naturalistic failure (in their mind) as positive “evidence” for their extraordinary claim.

More importantly the AiG claim that abiogenesis  “breaks the law of biogenesis”  is dishonest. The law of biogenesis (attributed to Louis Pasteur)  states that life cannot come from non-life, but Pasteur did not demonstrate that any such impossibility- only that it does not happen in everyday life. As shown in the K-K model it is at least possible that such can take place.

Now, add to that the Miller-Urey experiment. The Miller and Urey experiment basically applied an electrical discharge to a chemical brew resembling the Earth’s primitive reducing atmosphere. This brew included ammonia and methane, as well as hydrogen and water vapor. The effect of the discharge transformed the mix into a diverse yield of organic compounds. These included amino acids, as well as substances such as formic acid and urea that normally occur in living organisms.

The very fact so many organic compounds could arise is remarkable in itself, given the vast number of possible compounds that might have emerged. And while it is true that the discharge didn’t produce actual living cells, there is no reason – given enough time,- that a primitive pre-biotic cell in the distant past could not have emerged given the building blocks left behind

None of this was mentioned by Tyson, but it could have been and would likely have made the creationist crowd's heads explode even more.  Never mind.  In that memorable COSMOS episode Tyson gave  viewers a naturalist’s explanation for the world, and when he said science does not yet know something, that was no concession  of the failures of science, but instead a powerful example of the necessary honesty in which science thrives.

 That AiG sees the words “I don’t know” as a weakness shows the lengths of intellectual dishonesty they are willing to invoke to pull the wool over their followers’ eyes. (Though again, Tyson also could have shown more support for abiogenesis – such as by invoking  the Miller-Urey experiment- to make this less likely.)

No absolute proof yet for abiogenesis?  No  problem!  We atheists will take what we can get incrementally -  and if a naturalist universe can be delivered easily,  in bite- sized pieces by an affable showman like Neil Tyson-   so much the better.  

The Sundry Ways That Anti-Evolutionists Misfire

Announcement of Fundie Duane Gish's "Evolution vs. Creationism" lecture at the University of Alaska - Fairbanks in 1986. It's been over a hundred years and these bozos still  can only flail at scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution - or find bogus faults with his theory.

Diagram showing the putative (presumed) evolution of late Devonian fish.






A recurring theme among backward anti-evolutionists (like the late Duane Gish, see image above) is that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is somehow "missing in action" or accepted when evidence contradicts it. This is a typical trope, especially of the ID-creationist crowd, who have no independent evidence of their own.  Let me clarify: that withstands tests of falsification and exists apart from assorted nitpickings to do with perceived "failings" of evolution.  Among the fake issues, such as have been raised by Duane Gish, Jason Lisle and others.

(1) Darwin never said where the first cell came from.

This one's a simple non-starter, a 'macguffin' that marshals no negatives against Darwinism! The reason? It isn’t part of Darwinian evolution proper, but rather abiogenesis: the theory of the original inception of life, as opposed to its later evolution by natural selection. The consensus of current research is already fairly clear about the nature or form of the first primitive organisms. They were prokaryotic autotrophs, where a prokaryote has one chromosome only, dispersed in its cytoplasm. An autotroph is an organism that doesn’t depend on others for nutrition.

More specifically, they were suspended colloidal micro-spheres capable of exchanging energy with their surroundings. To get energy, these self-sustaining coacervate droplets could use one or two basic reactions involving adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and adenosine diphosphate (ADP).

L*M + R + ADP + P -> R + L + M + ATP

ATP + X + Y + X*Y -> ADP + X*Y + X*Y + P

In the above, L*M is some large, indeterminate, energy-rich compound that could serve as ‘food’. Whatever the specific form, it’s conceived here to have two major parts capable of being broken to liberate energy.

Compound R is perhaps a protenoid, but in any case able to act on L*M to decompose it. Concurrent with the first reaction is the possibility of a second, entailing autocatalytic molecules designated X*Y. These molecules can accelerate their own formation, using ATP. On the basis of the chemical reactions, the hypothetical coacervate would consist of the combination: X*Y + R.

Now, what properties might we expect for any such primitive life form? They’d include: simple organization, ability to increase in size, and ability to maintain itself over extended intervals. Does the coacervate meet these condition? Well, it has a very simple organization consisting of the molecules X*Y and R. It can increase its size by synthesizing more of X*Y, growing until unstable. Finally, it can maintain itself over indefinite intervals, so long as it can extract the chemical components it needs. What about replication? We expect that this is feasible when it splits into ‘daughters’ after growing too large. Then, so long as each has some of the protenoid R there is the capacity for replication.

A logical question is whether there is anything that can remotely compare to the theoretical construct above. In fact, there is, and it’s called a pleuro-pneumonia like organism or PPLO for short. The PPLO is as close to the theoretical limit of how small an organism can be[1]. Some figures clarify this. It has about 12 million atoms, and a molecular weight of 2.88 million Daltons[2]. Compared to an amoeba, it weighs about one billions times less.


(2) "The existence of living coelacanths disproves evolution"

This one is often invoked by crazy creationists to try to show that evolution “messed up” or went awry, given an alleged ancient fish (deemed extinct for tens of millions of years) suddenly shows up alive and well in 1938. Problem is, they get it all wrong from top to bottom, with erroneous assumptions piled onto some early taxonomic errors in classifying the living species.

Before the living specimens were discovered, it was believed by some that the coelacanth was a "missing link" between the fish and the tetrapods. It was often claimed that the coelacanth had “remained unchanged for millions of years”; but, in fact, the living species and genus were unknown from the fossil record. The most likely reason for the gap is the original taxonomy becoming extinct in shallow waters only. Deep-water fossils, however, are only rarely lifted to levels where paleontologists can recover them, making most deep-water taxa disappear from the fossil record.

Again, we have the sad spectacle of too eager-beaver creationists seizing on poorly constructed speciation catalogs, or wrong taxonomic assumptions – to make specious cases. In this case, conflating the ancient –prehistorical coelacanth with the modern living species, the Latimeria menadoensis, caught off Japan ca. 1938. Thus the absurd question posed by some (like Riffe) as to “How can such a creature be found alive in 1938 when supposedly dead for 80 million years?” is easily answered: Because we are looking at TWO different species of fish, from two differing sea water levels!!

(3) Darwin never actually found evidence for evolution in his Galapagos sojourn

This one is technically correct, but factually wrong. Let me explain.

The problem is that Darwin didn’t logically make all the necessary connections that his observations disclosed at the time he made them during his Beagle sojourn to the Galapagos. Indeed, Darwin was so initially imbued with the creationist perspective that he failed to collect one single species of giant tortoise present in the islands. Fortunately, the occurrence of other species - and their recording- ultimately held away with the assistance of a consummate taxonomic researcher: John Gould - an ornithological expert at the London Zoological Society.

Indeed, had Darwin already been privy to natural selection, and how adaptations operate within its purview, he'd have easily seen that the variety of beaks displayed among the finches he found was directly traceable to the sort of foods they ate, in the respective islands. In point of fact, four of the fourteen finch species fed on seeds (as finches generally do), and another two species consumed fruits, flesh and flowers of cacti. Seven other finch species were primarily insectivorous, while one fed exclusively on leaves. Thus, from his creationist disadvantage point, it wasn't surprising that Darwin was fooled to the extent of believing some of the birds weren't finches at all.

According to Frank J. Sulloway, in his essay, ‘Why Darwin Rejected Intelligent Design’:

“Faced with an absence of critical information to resolve the finches issue, Darwin continued to give a nod to the prevailing creationist assumption that variation within immutable species can lead to new varieties or subspecies that are adapted to local environments”

However, Darwin's pserspective was subsequently rescued by his good friend, John Gould . Sulloway (ibid.) notes that:

“Darwin returned to England, on October 2, 1836. Three months later, he deposited his Beagle collections of birds with John Gould, the ornithological expert at the London Zoological society.”THIS was the key breakthrough step since it was none other than Gould who “immediately realized the extraordinary nature of Darwin’s Galapagos specimens and analyzed and described them first”. In other words, it was John Gould who showed Darwin that he'd had the direct evidence for evolution via natural selection in his hands all the time. He just didn't recognize it!

Based on Gould’s analysis, contained in a full report he published March 1837, Darwin was finally informed that 3 of his 4 mockingbird species were distinct - new to science - and different from all other known mockingbirds. It was at that juncture Darwin found himself confronted by the problem of the origin of species that escaped him while actually in the Galapagos, imbued with his creationist mentality. And it was at this stage of discovery that the putative basis for his great work 'The Origin of Species' was forged.

Of course, it was no exaggeration to say Darwin was stunned by Gould's results. Indeed, if Gould was correct about the mockingbirds it meant that the supposed "barrier" between species had been broken by these birds on a set of isolated islands. Thus, gradual evolution through geographic isolation was the only plausible explanation that fit with the observational record (clarified by Gould, an expert ornithologist).

Darwin was later compelled to write in his Journal of Researches:

"Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends."

Fortunately for us all (now), as Darwin then came to examine more of his Beagle records from his new viewpoint, he realized he'd been blinded by the creationist codswallop. After reading Thomas Malthus' An Essay on the Principle of Population, Darwin realized that in the ongoing struggle for scarce resources, slight variations of beneficial nature would tend to be naturally selected - leading to increased survival and hence increase in adaptive traits.Thus, a finch peculiar to one island lacking in fruits, or other normal finch fare, could survive if it simply increased its adaptive repertoire, say by eating insects instead.

Again, we suggest to readers that the best strategy is to actually read Darwin's Origin of Species, to see first hand how much his viewpoint had changed and how (in his marvellous book) he was able to document visually the first hand evidence of natural selection - after being set straight by John Gould.

The best version of his book to get, therefore, is the one that is illustrated. Don't wait for it to appear on "Kindle" as it likely never will. None of the electronic book reading device manufacturers are going to have books older than about 40 years placed into their archives anytime soon! Get Darwin's book now - assuming you can locate an intact edition-  and enjoy it as you read it late into the night.

---------------------------------
[1] Viruses are smaller, of course, but they’re not regarded as free living organisms. That is, they require a host in order to live, replicate.
[2] One Dalton: roughly the mass-weight of a hydrogen atom or 1.66 x 10^-27 kg.

A New Theory of Evolution That Trumps Darwin?

A new theory of evolution has been advanced by Jeremy England, a young MIT professor who’s proposed a thesis based on thermodynamics, showing that the emergence of life was not accidental, but necessary. In an article in Quanta magazine early in 2014, that’s since been republished by Scientific American and, more recently, by Business Insider, he’s  quoted as saying, life itself evolved out of simpler non-living systems. In his words:

"Under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life,”

In a way this touches on the theory of the origin of life, abiogenesis. This is generally distinguished from the theory of evolution which shows how life evolves and speciation occurs.  Creationist Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis (AiG), after one Cosmos episode on the issue last April, asserted:

"Abiogenesis has never been observed in experimental biology and violates the most fundamental law in biology, the law of biogenesis. Nevertheless, the authors of the review are confident there was a naturalistic chemical origin for life.” [Biogenesis is the natural law that life comes from reproduction by living things].

But curiously, around the same time, a remarkable find was published in The New Scientist (Vol. 209, No. 2794, p. 11), by two investigators: Kunikho Kaneko and Atsushi Kamimura. The pair made a remarkable breakthrough in devising a testable model that was able to replicate the Abiogenesis process. The two basically solved the problem of how a lipid-coated proto-cell can divide into two (displaying reproduction) when the genetic material replicates.

Enter now, Jeremy England. According to the Quanta magazine piece:

From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

This means that “under certain conditions” where life is possible — as it is here on Earth, it is also quite probable, if not, ultimately, inevitable. Indeed, life on Earth could well have developed multiple times independently of each other, or all at once, or both. It does not mean that life is ubiquitous and can emerge on any planet anywhere in the galaxy or the universe. There still remain limiting factors defined by what we call the "habitable zone" around our own star -  which is of specific spectral type (G2).  Thus,  if the same conditions are found elsewhere then Earth-like planets circling other suns would have a much higher likelihood of carrying life as well.  See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/01/finding-second-earth-we-better-make.html


If England’s theory proves to be consistent and is confirmed, it will  be an epochal scientific advance but also be a fitting rebuke to pseudo-scientific creationists. Recall they have long mistakenly claimed that thermodynamics disproves evolution (specifically the 2nd law).  The error of the AiG crowd is two-sided :a) They assumes that evolution means more primitive organisms develop into more complex or organized ones, and, b) They misunderstand the second law (because it refers to increasing disorder or "entropy") as applicable to all living things- hence believe it is impossible they can "evolve" to more orderly, organized forms.

Consider (a) first: At no point and no place do evolutionists claim that more organized forms are the inevitable manifestation of natural selection and adaptation, and represent evolutionary success. What evolution states- which any high school biology student learns -  is that the species which survive best are the most well adapted to their environment.

Thus, the humble cockroach beats just about all other species on Earth for evolutionary success given it's been around for 150 million years. Humans, though much more complex and organized than cockroaches, have only been around in their modern form for barely 1.5 million years, if that. Humans, up to now, have enjoyed  barely 1/100 th the evolutionary success of the cockroach, measured in time!

Now, as to (b), this is a common error of those who've never taken advanced physics, but just read Googled excerpts. It's basically a direct result of misinterpretation of the 2nd law, something I often see from those who've never taken a serious physics course. Strictly speaking,  the law states:

Entropy (the state of disorder) will tend to increase over time in any closed system

This is generally expressed in statistical mechanics terms as:

s = log g

Where 'g' denotes the number of accessible states. In other words, in a closed system we will expect the probability of increasing entropy and that means increasing accessible states.  This was discussed at length when we looked at assorted spin systems (see the posts on 'Order and disorder'  on April 5th and 9th, 2013) and note that higher entropy - as in a state with low excess spin- corresponds to the most probable state. Say a  closed magnetic spin system S(2), has 10 spin ups while S(1) has five, then S(2) has a much higher degree of order (less entropy) than the system S(1). 

The part about closed systems is crucial since it is exactly the part that the creationist-ID crowd omits, which renders their complaints using the 2nd law non-starters. The reason is that neither the Earth nor its biological systems are "closed" systems, hence do not exhibit constantly increasing disorder. The Earth, for example, receives a constant input of radiant energy from the Sun - quantified as some 1360 joules per square meter per second. Plants on the Earth are likewise OPEN to solar energy, and receive it and then use it in the process of photo-synthesis.

Bottom line: Evolution is no more a violation of the Second Law than life itself is.

Germane to the point of England's thesis is that flows of energy — whether from the Sun or some other source — can give rise to what are known as dissipative structures, which are self-organized by the process of dissipating the energy that flows through them. Russian-born Belgian physical chemist Ilya Prigogine won the 1977 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work developing the concept. Common to all the examples is that order can arise from disorder.

In the thermodynamic study of chaos, similar approaches to equilibrium can be examined but permitting far from equilibrium changes. Given the right fluctuations, it’s even possible to generate self-organization from pre-existing chaos.

One of the simplest examples of a non-equilibrium system is a simple chemical reaction of the form:

X + 2Y <-> 3Y

X <-> W


where X, Y, W are arbitrary reactants that meet the conditions and the symbol (<->) denotes a two-way equilibrium process. We note here that at equilibrium detailed balance requires (with k1, k2, k3 and k4 the respective concentrations):

k1 xy² =  k2 y³

k3 y = k4 w

Similarly, a stationary state ‘far from equilibrium’ is disclosed by the concentration equation:

k1 xy² + k3 y = k2 y³ + k4 w

Or:

k1 xy² + k3 y - k2 y³ - k4 w = 0

 Note that in such a state, far from equilibrium, it isn’t necessary for each separate chemical reaction to balance in both directions. Clearly, non-equilibrium discloses aspects of the system that are inhibited when it is at equilibrium.  Prigogine in his monograph 'Order Out of Chaos'  cited the example of  individual tumor cells, for example, emerging from a disordered background (cf. Garay, R.P. and Levefer, R.: 1978, Theoretical Biology, 417, p. 73.) The cell appears as a fluctuation,  and is then able to develop by replication.

In a true sense, then, Prigogine’s work laid the foundations for what England is doing today, which is why it might be overstated to credit England with originating this theory. Several commentators at Quanta have pointed this out, noting other progenitors as well (here, here and here, among others).
 

In a sense then, it may be more accurate to say that rather than Jeremy England and his research group advancing a whole new theory, they are instead formulating an alternative multidisciplinary,his theoretical approach to evolution and abiogenesis. (You can search his research group home page for more.)  As the Quanta article puts it:

Above all, as described on the home page mentioned above, England is involved in knitting together the understanding of life and various stages of life-like processes combining the perspectives of biology and physics:

Living things are good at collecting information about their surroundings, and at putting that information to use through the ways they interact with their environment so as to survive and replicate themselves. Thus, talking about biology inevitably leads to talking about decision, purpose, and function.

Hence, it will be the development of a detailed body of specific mutually interrelated results that will distinguish England’s articulation of his theory from other earlier formulations- that have yet to be cast into a testable research approach. And whether or not England’s approach is validated in the end, he’s already doing a lot to build bridges between worldviews and inspire others to make similar efforts.  As the Quanta article explained:

England’s theoretical results are generally considered valid. It is his interpretation — that his formula represents the driving force behind a class of phenomena in nature that includes life — that remains unproven. But already, there are ideas about how to test that interpretation in the lab. 

“He’s trying something radically different,” said Mara Prentiss, a professor of physics at Harvard who is contemplating such an experiment after learning about England’s work. “As an organizing lens, I think he has a fabulous idea. Right or wrong, it’s going to be very much worth the investigation.”

Those readers who fancy themselves science nerds might enjoy this hour-long presentation of his work. 

Who Are the Creationists Kidding On Abiogenesis?

The matter of the ultimate origin of life, the theory of Abiogenesis (which is often erroneously conflated with the theory of evolution) has been problematical for years. What is sought is a basic explanation for how fundamentally non-living matter could acquire the properties and attributes of life, including being able to reproduce. In principle this isn't that remarkable a stretch, since we already know there exist living entities at the "margins" - the viruses- which display no attributes of life until they become attached to a host. Once in a host, they can appropriate its cell machinery to churn out billions of copies of themselves.

 

All of this, of course, can be done without supernatural agency.

 

Alas, creationist Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis (AiG) is  unable to swallow this and moreover is still upset that Neil deGrasse Tyson dared suggest life on earth started without the help of God. Tyson,  in one COSMOS episode,  honestly stated that the very origins of life “are not yet understood”. Because abiogenesis has yet to turn up any verifiable results—not that they have claimed any are verifiable—AiG is calling that evidence of a clear flaw. But what’s clear is that Tyson isn’t just a threat to creationists. Their big target is the reputation of science.

 

AiG , for example, continues in an attempt to discredit the science, saying:

“Abiogenesis has never been observed in experimental biology and violates the most fundamental law in biology, the law of biogenesis. Nevertheless, the authors of the review are confident there was a naturalistic chemical origin for life.” [Biogenesis is the natural law that life comes from reproduction by living things].

 

However,  in a remarkable find published in The New Scientist (Vol. 209, No. 2794, p. 11), two investigators: Kunikho Kaneko and Atsushi Kamimura, have made a remarkable breakthrough in devising a testable model that is able to replicate the Abiogenesis process. The two basically solved the problem of how a lipid-coated proto-cell can divide into two (displaying reproduction) when the genetic material replicates. Recall in an earlier blog where I showed the hypothetical proto-cell reaction wherein a self-sustaining coacervate droplet can use one or two basic reactions involving adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and adenosine diphosphate:

L*M + R + ADP + P -> R + L + M + ATP

ATP + X + Y + X*Y -> ADP + X*Y + X*Y + P

In the above, L*M is some large, indeterminate, energy-rich compound that could serve as ‘food’. Whatever the specific form, it’s conceived here to have two major parts capable of being broken to liberate energy. Compound R is perhaps a protenoid or lipid-coated proto-cell, but in any case able to act on L*M to decompose it. The problem with this earlier hypothesis was that such lipid-coated proto-cells lack the machinery to allow for easy division.

Kaneko and Kamimura solved this by taking their inspiration (for their model) from living things in which DNA and RNA code for proteins and the proteins catalyse replication of the genetic material. This goes back to biochemist Jacque Monod's concept that the organism is a self-constructing machine. Its macroscopic structure is not imposed upon it by outside forces, instead it shapes itself autonomously by dint of constructive internal (chemical) interactions. Thus in the Kaneko- Kamimura model one has a self-perpetuating system in which a cluster of two types of molecules catalyse replication for one another while also demonstrating rudimentary cell division.

In the Kaneko - Kamimura  (K-K) model, as with DNA, the genetic material replicates much more slowly than the other cluster molecules but also takes longer to degrade, so it enables lots of the other molecule to accumulate. Following replication of the heredity carrier the copies drift apart while the molecules between them break down automatically creating two separate entities (see image).

This is an exciting breakthrough but some further investigations are needed, specifically ways to circumvent the problem that (in real life) membrane lipids around an RNA molecule don't typically catalyse RNA replication. However, this isn't insurmountable, because all one need do (theoretically) is replace the lipids with hydrophobic peptides.

 

Basically what the K-K experiments show is that while abiogenesis hasn’t been directly observed it does provide  a materialist model that can account for it in a peripheral way. Since such a materialist model exists, it means that all supernatural explanations become redundant. If one therefore continues to use them, he commits the fallacy of ignotum per ignotius.

 

Thus to claim abiogenesis “has not been observed” (directly) – which is partially true, and then to say this proves the creation story is something that would raise the eyebrows of a kindergartner . Indeed it not only commits the fallacy of ignotum per ignotius, but also the fallacy of circular reasoning – since AiG and Ham are claiming that which they must set out to prove independently. Even if nothing existed for abiogenesis, they would be obliged to prove supernatural creation – they can’t use a naturalistic failure (in their mind) as positive “evidence” for their extraordinary claim.

 

More importantly the AiG claim that abiogenesis  “breaks the law of biogenesis”  is simply dishonest. The law of biogenesis (attributed to Louis Pasteur)  states that life cannot come from non-life, but Pasteur did not demonstrate that any such impossibility- only that it does not happen in everyday life. As shown in the K-K model it is at least possible that such can take place.

 

Now, add to that the Miller-Urey experiment. The Miller and Urey experiment basically applied an electrical discharge to a chemical brew resembling the Earth’s primitive reducing atmosphere. This brew included ammonia and methane, as well as hydrogen and water vapor. The effect of the discharge transformed the mix into a diverse yield of organic compounds. These included amino acids, as well as substances such as formic acid and urea that normally occur in living organisms.

The very fact so many organic compounds could arise is remarkable in itself, given the vast number of possible compounds that might have emerged. And while it is true that the discharge didn’t produce actual living cells, there is no reason – given enough time,- that a primitive pre-biotic cell in the distant past could not have emerged given the building blocks left behind

 

None of this was mentioned by Tyson, but it could have been and would likely have made the creationist crowd's heads explode even more. Also, they have had to work much harder to come up with any kind of  coherent response.

But what is most galling about AiG and Ham is the tacit assumption that their audience lacks basic scientific understanding which gives AiG permission to be “fact-free.”  Hence, they can peddle any balderdash that violates logic or science with impunity.  Meanwhile,  Neil deGrasse Tyson gives viewers a naturalist’s explanation for the world, and when he says science does not yet know something, this is not a sign of the failures of science, but instead a powerful example of the necessary honesty in which science thrives. The very fact that AiG sees the words “I don’t know” as a weakness shows the lengths of intellectual dishonesty they are willing to go to pull the wool over their followers’ eyes. (Though again, Tyson also could have shown more support for abiogenesis – such as by invoking  the Miller-Urey experiment- to make this less likely. Hence, one may also argue that AiG exploited COSMOS’ “loose” presentation in playing to a popular audience.)

Never mind, the hysterical  reaction from AiG  and Ham after nearly every COSMOS episode shows a position of pure panic. Neil deGrasse Tyson has become their biggest public enemy because he get primo air time every Sunday  on one of their (conservatives’)  favorite channels. Up to now, these clods haven’t come up with any series with similar gravitas that even FOX will accept – to compete with COSMOS – and this drives them batshit crazy..

 Ham (who not long ago got his head handed to him by Bill Nye in a web debate) just can’t accept that what he has is palpable bull crap while Tyson offers actual science. In addition,  Tyson make science accessible to all people with an open mind, and  he is likeable and non-controversial to boot.

 True, Tyson does not identify himself as an atheist (for obvious reasons), but it’s clear to a blind man he is one. Also, it doesn’t put our (atheist) noses out of joint because it  means he can reach across both sides of the aisle to a much  greater degree  than the late Chris Hitchens, or Richard Dawkins.

We atheists will take what we can get and if a naturalist universe can be delivered easily,  in bite- sized pieces by an affable showman like Neil Tyson, so much the better!

Why Are the Fundies So Averse to Accepting Human Evolution?

Having had over a dozen debates with creationists and ID fundamentalists, I'm still at a loss as to why they so vehemently reject human evolution. Even when presented with the hardest evidence, they tend to bury their heads in the sand like ostriches. It's as if their heads are ready to explode.  What gives with them?

My own theory is they suffer from what I call grandiosity syndrome, the belief in human exceptionalism -and that humans are somehow "fallen angels" as opposed to being risen apes. But apes these people don't want to be. NO, they aspire to sublime, supernatural greatness - which no ape will ever attain. Thus, when they look at an ape, or ape ancestor face in relation to a human, they go batshit crazy in denial, because they can't handle the similarities.

"No, dammit! That ain't me! I am special! I got a soul, and free will and all that, you damned commie atheist!"

But the hard facts belie their desperate protestations, because in the end, they really are risen apes! One of the best evidences for this is at the micro-biological level.  This is from the DNA (genomic) sequencing of the human and chimpanzee which discloses the remarkable fact that BOTH have the exact SAME cytochrome –c protein sequence! If evolution is false we’d expect the human and chimp cytochrome-c sequences to vary dramatically given that it exhibits 10^93 variations in functionality with other organisms. That is, 10 followed by ninety three zeros!

Yet the fundies either reject or refuse to process this data! They absolutely want no ape cousins!

Then there the fact is we have actual photographic evidence assembled for the telomeric fusion of the ape 2p and 2q chromosomes to become the single ‘2’ chromosome in humans. In other words, prima facie evidence of a common ancestor. (See, e.g.: Yunis and Prakash, 1982, Science, Vol. 215, p. 1525, 'The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy')

People who know next to zippo about Darwinian evolution (they haven’t even read Darwin’s Origin of Species) constantly complain about perceived “problems with evolution” but most of these are McGuffins, red herrings, straw men or false issues.  You can generally quickly tell their specious basis on account of the near hysteria with which they're interjected into debates.


A choice one is the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

By “micro-evolution” we mean minute evolutionary change, involving a small proportion of DNA. For example, as observed in changes in haemoglobins, histo-compatability antigens, and biochemical environmental adaptations (e.g. formation of blood chemicals which confer some form of resistance to environmental toxins or agents). The main point to bear in mind is that micro-evolution, whatever the changes, still preserves species' mating ability - whereas macroevolution generally does not.

 

Macroevolution, by contrast, entails a proportionately large change in the DNA underlying it that probably reflects ongoing natural selection, over significant time. For example, the change from a cold-blooded dinosaur to a warm-blooded dinosaur that’s a precursor of modern birds would be a case of macroevolution. Similarly, the change from an ape-human ancestor to Homo sapiens (by telomeric fusion of the 2p and 2q chromosomes to the ‘2’ chromosome in humans) would be a case of macroevolution, despite the fact the evidence is available at the chromosomal level.

 

 Thus far we have assembled more than 29+ evidences for macro-evolution all of which were originally set out in the context of falsifiable hypotheses, and then accepted because they passed those observational tests. See more at:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Another key fundie-creationist dysfunction,  showing his lack of education,  is mixing up the origin of life (or the origin of the cosmos) with evolution. The origin of life falls under the theory of abiogenesis :i.e.  the theory of the original inception of life, as opposed to its later evolution by natural selection. The origin of the universe, meanwhile, falls under the theory of cosmogenesis.- or how the cosmos originated, e.g. in the Big Bang.  If the fundie can't tell either of these theorie from Darwinian evolution - how can anything else he writes be trusted?  He really isn't fit to be in a serious debate, but perhaps he can engage in discussion concerning which  water colors a Kindergartner might use!


Then there is the old complaint concerning "gaps in the fossil record". As if a few transitional layer gaps can refute an entire theory.  But as Richard Dawkins has put it ( 'The Blind Watchmaker’, p. 240):

“The reason that the transition from ancestral species to descendant species appears to be jerky is simply that, when we look at a series of fossils from any one place, we are probably not looking at an evolutionary event at all, but a migrational event. The arrival of a new species from another geographical area
”

I mean, after all, there’s no law that commands all species remain fixed in one place their entire lives! Even today, as water holes dry up or food reserves dip, African animals like Wildebeest, antelope and others will migrate to new areas in search of resources to support them. 

Not mentioned by Dawkins is how many other ‘holes” or gaps may have been created by virtue of tectonic plates (which make up the Earth’s crust) slipping or crushing key fossils in distinct layers. Obviously, if such tectonic traversal displaced a fossil layer, then it likely won’t be found when it may well have harbored intermediate forms.

Another question from the perpetually clueless:


If Evolution’s true then why don’t we see apes evolving into humans?

This nonsense propagates because they purveyors fail to recognize that humans, apes and monkeys are all distant cousins, as opposed to species in the same SINGLE evolutionary path. Humans don’t come from apes but from a common ancestor that was neither ape nor human in the distant past. Also, it overlooks the algorithmic branching basis of evolution, see e.g. http://www.brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/04/clearing-air-on-missing-links.html

Thus, multiple evolutionary offshoots (as shown above) confirm no (single) primate evolution is based on a single path. Thus in the past seven million years there have evolved multiple hominid species including Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, and Homo Neanderthalis- all of which went extinct along the way- except modern humans or Homo sapiens. Meanwhile the idea of current apes evolving to humans totally turns this algorithmic-convergence on its head, and proposes a singly determined evolutionary path!

 

Another widely disseminated but misbegotten and misinformed trope:

 

Evolutionists claim the process occurs by random chance

Not so. Natural selection is not “random” nor does it operate by “chance”. What happens is that once a particular mutation is stabilized, then natural selection preserves the gains and eradicates the mistakes (to enhance better adaptation). Meanwhile, "chance" would be like me sitting a monkey down in front of a type writer or computer keyboard and hoping there is some "chance" it will type out at least one page of coherent script. But since a monkey will likely not recognize any key - or even if it does, then make a connection to words, or how to compose them into articulated thoughts - this isn't likely. It all rests on CHANCE!


Meanwhile, natural selection rests on preferred steps each of which consolidate former steps while advancing the adaptation. Thus, the eye evolved from a single light sensitive spot in a cell to the complex organ we behold today not by chance but rather by thousands of intermediate steps – each preserved because they assured better adaptation if incorporated, and hence a better eye. Many of these steps can still be observed today in simpler organisms.

Richard Dawkins perhaps put it best (op. cit.):


"What natural selection does is to consolidate particular random mutations into a more stable, adaptive adjustment – governed by deterministic factors and inputs. Thus, that while the selected trait often appears at random, its preservation in the gene structure cannot be relegated to randomness”

 

What does all this show? That most of the alleged "problems of evolution" are confections or simple red herrings which exist only in the minds of those who insist on seeing problems - perhaps because "problems" with evolution assuage some doubts that their good Book gives them the whole truth.

But I still suspect the core problem is that those who reject human evolution, refuse to see humans in any biological fellowship with the likes of the chimp  - despite the fact we share 98% of the same DNA and exhibit the same  cytochrome –c  protein sequence. So literally, we are "brothers" under the fur, or skin...as the case may be.

Human exceptionalism is unwarranted until such time we can show ourselves to be absolutely above the chimp in every way - including making war and killing our fellows. But don't hold your breath!

How Do We Educate GOOPr Morons?

Well, wouldn't you know it wouldn't take long for assorted fundagelical know-nothings to try to defend the moron Paul Broun, a current member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee who actually has rejected 90% of modern science. (See, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/10/congressman-moron-broun-science-is-from.html) To remind readers, Broun insisted that the Big Bang Theory, Embryology and Evolution are all "lies from the pit of Hell".

Now, let me make it abundantly clear here, especially for the occasional fundy readers who have difficulty parsing complex notions, and even the principle of basic free speech - that I've nothing against Broun saying whatever he wants to his congregation, and that he's entitled to whatever whacko beliefs he has in the context of that congregation. But he's not entitled to use his office as a member of a congressional Science, Space &Technology Committee to mouth bullshit and half-cracked, stupid theories of "creation".

Anyway, let's deal with Mr. "Straight Talk" Fundy and some of his comments. He bloviates:

"Evolution is an enabler of atheism. Evolutionary scientists likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism, but according to the Bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists."

Well, I hate to disabuse this poor,  uninformed cuss but the theory of evolution is an "enabler" of nothing. It stands on its own scientific merits as I noted numerous times before and even showed the predictions which it confirms, including the presence of essentially the same cytochrome-c sequence in chimps and humans, the combination of the 2p and 2q chromosomes in apes to the '2' chromosome in humans, and the evolution of the foraminfera - for which we have a FULL evolutionary record.

Sadly, this guy's deficiency of education is also apparent in confusing evolution - the theory for the DEVELOPMENT of life via natural selection, with Abiogenesis - the theory of the ORIGIN of life. I mean - if a would-be critic isn't even able to tell evolution from Abiogenesis, what the hell use is his critique? It's just plain old garbage - useful only to flush down a toilet. Either you learn the differences between the scientific areas you're critiquing, or you shut up.

So, given he doesn't know dogshit about evolution, let's move on to the big Bang, where he babbles:

"So, what about this "Big Bang" crapola? Well, in view of the incredible order in the universe, it is difficult to draw any conclusion other than existence of a supernatural, superintelligent Being behind it all."

Hardly! THAT is an assumption which has to be proven. Meantime, his appeal to this "incredible order" in the universe again breaks down because his monumental ignorance. He refers to an "order" which manifests in about 0.001% of the cosmos but ignores the other 99.999% where NO order is evident, and indeed, for which something like 73% is dark energy and another 20% dark matter! (The rest being hot, ionized plasma).

Of course, if one has his or her head only in bibles there's no doubt there'll be no familiarity with the basic implements and instruments of modern cosmology. If this character had even the limited ability to read outside his one book, he'd learn about the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and other devices which have disclosed the dark energy in the cosmos.

One's only conclusion is that if some "supernatural' entity created the cosmos, he or It must've been BLIND! To have created so much DARKNESS, in dark energy and dark matter!

WTF good is a blind creator?

The blogger, having failed in his arguments has no choice but to use red herrings, i.e.

"As one scientist said, "You can lead a skeptical astronomer to order but you cannot make him think." Even the agnostic, Immanuel Kant , wrote: "Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above and the moral law within me."

Well, first NO scientist I am aware of would've made the critical statement about skepticism, the fundy invokes above. The reason is that skepticism is a healthy and integral part of science. In fact, no one can truly claim to have a scientific temperament if he doesn't also have a skeptical mind. He must question all claims, and also the evidence, if it doesn't pass muster.  As for Kant, let's bear in mind he lived hundreds of years BEFORE the discovery of dark energy and dark matter (in the 1990s), so obviously would have been enthralled by the perception of superficial order. Meanwhile, the fundies' favorite book as a reliable repository of scientific knowledge FAILS because it can't pass the most rudimentary science test!

Consider the initial major error in Genesis,(Gen.:1: 1-5)

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day”

It is clear that the “light” referred to in the last three sentences is none other than the SUN. However, it is clear from reading each line through that the Earth was supposedly made BEFORE the Sun. (E.g. Earth without form, darkness upon face of the deep).


However, this is physically impossible! We know from modern astrophysics that the solar proto-nebula had to collapse first to yield the SUN. (No planets, since they had yet to spin off the collapsing nebular cloud – it hadn’t cooled enough to allow it). As the proto-solar nebula collapsed it also began spinning and gained angular momentum. This angular momentum was then transferred to regions of the nebula that cooled and separated from the whole, and these regions became separate clouds of dust and gas that aggregated into the planets.


Under a combination of electrostatic attraction (between larger charged particles) and gravity (attracting the whole mass from the center of the cloud) each planet was formed as what we call a “planetesimal”. As more angular momentum was transferred – the planetesimal’s (each one) acquired their own spin (in a period of revolution) and specific shapes. The giant planets (e.g. Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus) garnered more spin momentum than the more dense, terrestrial planets. Thus Jupiter’s planetesimal ended up as an oblate spheroid with diameter of about 88,000 mile and rotating rapidly with a day of ~ 10 hours. Earth meanwhile ended up as a relatively spherical orb with diameter of ~ 8,000 miles and day approaching approach 24 hrs. Mars ended up in a similar shape to that of Earth and a diameter of 4200 miles and day ~ 24 hours.


Thus, the Earth spun off about 1.1 billion years after the solar nebula fully collapsed, and it could not have come BEFORE the Sun. Indeed, the absence of the central mass of the Sun, or ~ 10 ^33 kilograms, would have meant the Earth- if made with no Sun present- would instantly have been hurled into a direction toward the constellation Hercules at 12 miles per second with no central mass to keep it in check.

  Hamstrung he then babbles more balderdash:

 "Modern astronomers are again faced with the evidence of God for a Creator of the cosmos .  

Alas, given the majority proportions of dark energy and dark matter we are faced with NO such evidence. One must wonder what ale or spiked pale beer or moonshine this guy is drinking to entertain such fantasies.  

And to top it off we behold this nonsense:

 "Ironically, the Big Bang theory does not explain the "bang." It takes current conditions and attempts to count backward in time. It assumes that all natural laws have remained the same since the beginning of the universe, but even then it cannot explain how energy could reside in a singularity or what made it explode.  

First, the term "Big Bang" does not refer to a "bang" in any literal sense. There could have been no "bang" because there was no space for it to have exploded into. Hence, it is not an explosion but an expansion. This expansion was initiated by the eruption of negative (vacuum) energy. In its inception, from negative vacuum energy, then space-time was actually created too.  (Let's also be aware that the initial singularity is actually a kind of misnomer.  It technically refers to a point inside the light cone of a point in de Sitter space.  However, the point itself and its light cone are in fact the 'big bang' of the Friedmann model for which the scale factor goes to zero. But it is not 'singular').

 Second, the reference to "current conditions" only applies strictly to THERMODYNAMICS or a thermodynamic basis. (As shown in the Appendix of Steven Weinberg's 'First Three Minutes'. Thus Weinberg uses the fact that the radius of the universe is inversely proportional to the temperature, T, and hence the mass density rho(t) is inversely proportional to R(t) to the 4th power).

Thus, we can - from thermodynamics- arrive at the original temperature (or fairly close to the instant of inception) by taking the current 2.7 K microwave background and extrapolating back using black body radiation principles and basic statistical mechanics.  

Third, obviously it can't have assumed all natural laws "remained the same since the beginning of the universe" because the temperatures back then would not have allowed it! In the earliest instants we had temperatures of over a trillion degrees K so how could any natural laws exist such as recognized today? The ambient temperatures wouldn't even have been cool enough to permit the formation of extended matter or mass systems, or even ATOMS! Thus, Newton's law of universal gravitation wouldn't even have applied! Of course, none of Newton's law of motion would have either!

 His last complaint discloses further entrenched ignorance. Again, the Big Bang was not an "explosion" but an expansion which also initiated space-time. The energy resident in the initial singularity has to be treated in two parts, one applicable to conformal space-time and the other non-conformal. Interested readers might want to get hold of the excellent paper: 'Universe Before Planck Time - A Quantum Gravity Model' in Physical Review D, Vol. 28, p. 756 where T. Padmanabhan shows how the universe could be incepted from an initial quantum fluctuation.

 This is possible when the conformal part of space-time is treated as a quantum variable.   Padmanabhan does this beautifully, by using a quantum harmonic oscillator model and using integrals related to the 'action' (J) as a function of time. He then solves for the 'expansion factor' S(t) using two separate energy equations from which he's able to track the energy associated with the singularity.  

For those who might not be able to get hold of his paper, my 2009 blog on vacuum energy and fluctuations is still available: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/09/another-case-of-misapplied-causality-to.html  

What we can see from this is that fundy bloggers who know nothing about quantum mechanics, cosmology or evolution need to keep their comments confined to their good books and refrain from expostulaing on things beyond their ken, for which they have not one scintilla of background.  

Hey, that's good advice for Paul Broun too!