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!

Idiocy Beyond Belief: Charles Pierce Exposes Our Religiously Nutcase Nation

“Things are in the wrong place. Religion is in the box where science used to be. Politics is on the shelf where you thought you left science the previous afternoon. Entertainment seems to have knocked over and spilled on everything.”


― Charles P. Pierce,  Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free



Reading Charles P. Pierce's book  Idiot America: How Stupidity Became A Virtue in the Land of the Free, is sobering to say the least. The first chapter, on the Creationist Museum of Ken Ham in Kentucky, is like being whacked by a two by four - and you wonder how so many 'Muricans' could be so dumb as to spend $149 each to see exhibits (e.g. dinos with saddles at the time of "Adam and Eve") when it's all bullshit.  Soon after the "stars" elicited by Pierce's 2 x4 whack (or maybe wake up call) settle down, one begins to see how this country became so totally screwed up that the inmates are literally running the asylum. It also doesn't inspire a lot of hope, unless and until more of us are willing to call out and ridicule the idiots among us or those in the media who turn a blind eye toward them- thereby encouraging their foolishness. For more on this, and to get Pierce's POV directly, check out this You tube interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20zM1OblhKk


I especially liked how Pierce reserved special invective for the semi-literate creators  Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye, of the absurd  Left Behind  series (p. 132):

“Thousands of people ascending bodily to heaven? Antichrists from the UN with names like James Bond villains? Jesus chopping up folks in the sand? To call this medieval is to to insult Thomas Aquinas; this is the kind of thing dreamed up by religious lunatics..”

He also reserves some special opprobrium for TIME magazine which put the images of the culprits....errrr....creators on one of its covers. As he notes (ibid.):

"The article inside the magazine did not find it necessary to point out that (a) Jenkins and LaHaye are peddling a fringe interpretation of Scripture rejected by most scholars, and (b) the whole senario is absurd no matter how many people believe it."

And for sure, millions of idiots across this land do believe it, as certainly as I believe the Sun will rise in the morning- but predicated on astronomic reality. These idiots have found a "bouy" to latch on to in the midst of stormy uncertain times and seas. With their special latch keys to opening their 2,000 yr. old  "good book" they believe themselves privy to all that's going on now and all that will go on until their fantasy "Second coming". And anyone with the temerity not to side with them, or criticize their invite to "salvation" is damned on the spot as heathen, infidel or worse. They have to do that because it's the only way they can elevate their own imbecility.

But as Pierce argues in his interview, we don't have to assist in validating their specious rot, thereby enabling them as much of the media do! That's why he includes TIME, or any other journal or media outlet as Bigger Idiots when they promote or lend credence to such whacko beliefs. As Cenk Uygur who gives the interview offers up, it's mainly because formerly reputable journalistic departments have been converted to sales departments. All they see in front of them are $$$$$ signs, and if putting a couple of end-times promoting dopes on a cover can grab more sales, they will do it...'devil take the hindmost'.

But Pierce's major scorn is for how the lunacy of current religious crankery has flowed into our politics and turned it into the laughing stock of the world. As he observes (ibid.):

“Because nothing sells in the modern Christian Marketplace like the notion that Christians are beset on all sides by powerful forces desperately in need of a good dismebowelling, it was inevitable that religious marketing would flow into the country’s politics. Amnd religion has been sold there solely as a product.”

He goes on to point out (ibid.):

“Political religion has always been a sucker’s game for marks and prayerful mama’s boys, an ever vain search for a non-existent pea hidden beneath the swindler’s overturned chalices. It exchanges the loaves and fish for the rigged wheel and the marked deck.


A politician discussing his religion now refers to himself as a ‘person of faith’ – which tells you more about the politician’s balls than it does his soul. He doesn’t have enough of the former to call himself ‘religious’ because that leads to the question of which religion and why he chooses to follow it and not dozens of others, or none of them at all.”

What about "faith -based" programs or whatever? Pierce again:

“Faith-based is another dishonest term for a dishonest time. It’s a word for people too cowardly to call themselves religious and it is beloved by politicians too cowardly to debate something as substantial as faith. It was eagerly adopted by Idiot America  which is too lazy to do either one."

He goes on to add that Idiot America is too lazy because the faith based term conforms to the "Three Great Premises" - beloved by all simpletons in the country:

- It's a cheap salesman's term of art, something used to "pitch a cereal"

- It sounds like an additive, i.e. "faith based" - an artificial flavoring to make crude biases taste of bread and wine

- It's camouflage under which religion is sold like smuggled goods in places where it doesn't belong.

How fucked up is Idiot America? Let's take the  memetic "tour" offered by Pierce:

"Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark? Ken Ham's Idiot Answers in Genesis (AIG)


Welcome to your new Eden.

Welcome to Idiot America.

Let's take a tour, shall we? For the sake of time, we'll just cover the last year or so (2008-09).

A federally funded abstinence program suggests that HIV can be transmitted through tears. An Alabama legislator proposes a bill to ban all books by gay authors.

The Texas House passes a bill banning suggestive cheerleading. And nobody laughs at any of it, or even points out that, in the latter case, having Texas ban suggestive cheerleading is like having Nebraska ban corn.

James Dobson, a prominent conservative Christian spokesman, compares the Supreme Court to the Ku Klux Klan.

Pat Robertson, another prominent conservative preacher, says that federal judges are a more serious threat to the country than is Al Qaeda and, apparently taking his text from the Book of Gambino, later sermonizes that the United States should get with it and snuff the democratically elected president of Venezuela.

The Congress of the United States intervenes to extend into a televised spectacle the prolonged death of a woman in Florida.

The majority leader of the Senate, a physician, pronounces a diagnosis based on heavily edited videotape. The majority leader of the House of Representatives argues against cutting-edge research into the use of human stem cells by saying that "an embryo is a person.... We were all at one time embryos ourselves. So was Abraham. So was Muhammad. So was Jesus of Nazareth." Nobody laughs at him or points out that the same could be said of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or whoever invented the baby-back rib.

And, finally, in August, the cover of Time -- for almost a century the dyspeptic voice of the American establishment -- clears its throat, hems and haws and hacks like a headmaster gagging on his sherry, and asks, quite seriously: "Does God have a place in science class?"

Read Pierce's book if you dare, but better to do it in small quantized chunks, lest your head explode at the spectacle of so many idiots in our midst!