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.

Evangelicals Give Artificial Intelligence A Fair Shake? Don't Make Me Laugh!

Evangelicals evidently are ready to take on artificial intelligence, A.I., according to a recently released document by 'The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission' of the Southern Baptist Convention.   According to a recent WSJ piece ('Evangelicals Take On Artificial Intelligence', May 10, p. A13) the document "addresses topics from sex and medicine to accountability and the image of God". And the underlying theme is 'What does it mean to be human?"

The author, S. Joshua Swamindass, is exceptional in not only being an evangelical but an "artificial intelligence scientist" in his own words.  This interjected some cognitive dissonance even as I read the piece, but by the end I became convinced he had his head screwed on straight in terms of the questions he asked, and the challenges to the document made.

For example, he notes the document claims that "moral decision making is the exclusive responsibility of humans".  Kind of astounding given that A.I.-driven vehicles must make intant decisions i.e. "in facing a potential accident the car may need to make moral decisions".  For example, the A.I. vehicle is suddenly faced with a deer in the middle of the highway. Does it veer to avoid it, thereby crossing into the oncoming lane - and colliding with vulnerable humans? Or opt to  hit the deer?  In the latter,  more moral example, human life is preserved but the  animal is sacrificed.

As Swamindass puts it: "The document seems to oppose artificial intelligence where it might delegate moral decisions like this but it is not clear. This risks unnecessary  prohibitions of life-saving technology."

He goes on to cite the same document in claiming that "God alone has the power to create life"

But notes,

"This phrase appears in traditional theology as an affirmation of God's providence and authority"

Adding that clearly it "doesn't prohibit creating life through reproduction" (though theists I've debated have insisted this is still "secondary divine creation, since the humans who reproduced were already created by God".)

The author also adds the example of "creating new viruses in a lab", but most theists again would argue the proto-life or other chemicals needed for this lab creation "were already created by a divine entity."

Which is why the Materialist (or Atheist) scientist simply refers to the chemical dynamics associated with colloidal, non-living droplets, that subsequently evolve to a rudimentary life form.

So we begin with  colloidal micro-spheres  - abundant in the primitive Earth - 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):[1]

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 chemical combination: X*Y + R. 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 conditions?

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[3]. Some figures clarify this. It has about 12 million atoms, and a molecular weight of 2.88 million Daltons[3]. Compared to an amoeba, it weighs about one billions times less.
So here we have the author's dilemma solved!

His related objection to the evangelicals' document is "it seems to declare artificial minds either impossible or immoral."  Then asking: "Why not encourage scientific inquiry?"  Well, because that process is foreclosed by doctrinal, supernaturally -mesmerized minds which abhor the scientific process itself.  Let's examine why:

You have data, and accessory information which leads to some initial result which tests a particular hypothesis- call it 'x'.

You then acquire better data (perhaps because of refined instruments, techniques ) and are led to a modified (improved) result such that:

x (n+1) = x + P(x)

where x(n +1) denotes an improvement via iteration, with P(x) the process (acting on x) that allows it.

Later, more refined data become available, such that:

x(n + 2) = x(n + 1) + P'(x + 1)

And so on, and so on and so forth.

Each x, x(n+1), x(n+2) etc. being a successive approximation to what the objective, genuine value should be.

Religions - by contrast- simply impose their truth ab initio by fiat or decree. There is no attempt whatever to incorporate any approximation, since that implies limits and the possibility of contradiction. Hence, to even acknowledge that 'truth' can't be accessed all at once. Rather, one must set rational truth aside and succumb to ‘faith”.  Given the Southern Baptist Convention is committed to faith, not successive approximations and testing of their beliefs, it follows no scientific inquiry would ever be undertaken by them.  Why would it if there exists even a remote possibility of their claims being proven wrong?

From this, and given the rigid beliefs the WSJ author cites in the Baptists' document it ought not surprise anyone that they'd regard artificial minds as either "impossible" or "immoral". Why? Because those are the only two options available to the closed religious mentality unwilling to test its convictions, beliefs, dogmas and pronouncements.  Knowing full well that, if tested, any or all may be found wanting.

Indeed, a more pertinent question (for Southern Baptist evangelicals)  than: 'Why not encourage scientific inquiry?'  is: Why is Swamindass himself  an evangelical?  How does he manage to pursue scientific inquiry if he embraces a faith that has no use for research based on successive approximations? If he could answer that he might be able to grasp why "a far reaching statement of religious convictions never began with a list of questions".    The religiously molded don't want or need questions, they already have the answers in their "good book".


---
[1] See, e.g. Zindler, Frank: 1989, How Did Life Begin- Part III, The American Atheist, April, 1989, page 42.

[2] 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.

[3] One Dalton: roughly the mass-weight of a hydrogen atom or 1.66 x 10-27 kg

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!