Can random molecular interactions create life?

[Moonbeam]

SegaLore:

"But people will say it's unlikely?'

Maybe some will. I think it's more likely that it is inevitable. As long as we are concidering 'could be's, that's the one that makes the most simple sense to me.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Moonbeam, I think the problem is the tendency of some to draw conclusions from speculation. Now speculation is a fine thing and I do it all the time, but it makes a poor model for natural law. We are all blind men examining the elephant. And we will always be blind to the truth of things to a certain degree. I present a hypothesis for consideration. There exists a set of particles that are non interacting outside of their set. Further, none of these belong to the set of particles that constitute "normal" matter. Now the question is this. Given the premise that these particles exist, how do you detect them? They do not interact with us by definition. They do not feel our gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force nor the strong force. They are forever elusive. NO device could ever detect them. Therefore what can we say about them? Nothing. They can neither be proven or disproven. They are truly irrevelent. But it drives some nuts to think there are limitations to what is possible. They would argue that if we cannot see them, they do not exist. But they (in this scenario) do exist. It is our connectedness with our universe and the nature of that universe that forever blinds us to the "truth" Likewise I submit there are indeed truths that are unknowable (ala Godel) but ARE relevent. The point is that there are processes at work, that may influence us past, present, and future, which we do not and cannot fully comprehend. Samuel Johnson once said "I have found you a reason. I am not obligated to find you an understanding" I am comfortable knowing I am not all knowing. I think it would do some well to consider this before drawing concrete conclusions about "random events".

 

[xirtam]

<< We are all blind men examining the elephant. >>



Is that true with regard to the nature of the world? How do you know?

 

[xirtam]

<< So, the universe creates itself... >>



How can anything "create itself"? To create, an entity or a "cause" must exist prior to any kind of act, mustn't it? The way it looks to me, one must believe in eternal matter or a transcendent being. A transcendent being seems far more plausible to me than "eternal matter," because if all our scientific laws applied to this "eternal matter," we'd have some serious inconsistencies.

Does it seem plausible to you that my car created itself?

 

[fatalbert]

<< Brain....hurting......so many letters....soooo many words. >>



yes,

very simple life, i.e. the protobiotants that supposedly first came into being were simply organic molecules that became bacteria, which evolved into Eukarotic cells and from there it all went to humanity.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well lets begin with semantics. "Understanding the Nature of the World" What do you mean by this? I take it as the totality of knowlege about all that is real. By implication, if I know all that is real, then anything that falls outside that knowlege is by definition false. This requires at least 2 things. Perfect knowlege, and perfect reasoning. I maintain that to have perfect knowlege would require knowing the current state of all things. Perfect reasoning then gives the correct answers to whatever question is asked drawing from this aforementioned perfect knowlege. Let's stop here and breathe. Let's go back a bit to Kurt Godel. At the risk of oversimplification, he stated that there are both unknowable truths and falsehoods. The key word is unknowable. Now this says our knowlege is imperfect. If so, then our knowlege of current conditions is incomplete. If that is true, then what we think we know is real and true can be wrong. Now we may have the correct answer to a question on any number of questions, but the TOTALLITY of knowlege eludes us. So we examine, we test, but the "Nature of the world" always has something new to reveal.

If you think my definition is too stringent, or in error, then I suggest you consider this. I remember a bible story about God confounding the language of men at the tower of Babel. Something to the effect of "Let us go down and confound their language else they will be able to do whatever they imagine." Not an exact quote, but quite like it I think. Lets assume for arguments sake that we can do just that, by reason and imagination, we learn all that is knowable. Lets take this and run with it a bit.

Animals.
Yep animals. Mammals in particular. You can train a rat to find food in a maze. After enough trials, it remembers where it's food is. Further if you change the maze a little, it can figure out a path to the food. It drew upon its knowlege and found a path to its lunch. Rats have intelligence. Not much by our standards.
Now take an ape. An ape can also do this trick, but much better. In fact apes can use tools, carry out complex interactions. They can predict future events based on past events. In other words they can REASON. It seems that that ability is limited. Can an ape imagine space flight? If so they are keeping it a great secret. Rats then? I doubt it. So what can a rat or a monkey do? Most likely what it can imagine, however primitively. So is it a fault in ourselves that we cannot teach a rat about Newtons Laws, or a chimp QED? Or is the animal at fault for being uncooperative? No, "fault" is a type mismatch. You cannot apply it here no more than you can ask about the marital status of the number 5. It is the nature of the creatures involved. Any adequate language or symbolism is forever beyond them. Remember an infinite number of monkeys typing forever may produce all the works of Shakespere, but NONE of the monkeys would grasp their meaning, at least not in our context. This leads to-

Axiom- A creature may not understand more than it can understand.

It therefore follows.
An ant can know what an ant can know.
A rat can know what a rat can know
An ape can know what an ape can know.
A human can know what a human can know.

Lets stop a moment. What correlates with what and how much a creature knows? The complexity of its central nervous system. I don't think this is contraversial, so I will proceed.

Rats know more than ants because rats are more complex neurologically
Apes- same as above.
Humans- same as above.

Now is there no evidence to suggest that human brains are inherently the last possible step in complexity.
So.. to go on a hypothetical limb, suppose there were a creature that was as neurologically advanced compared to us as we are to the rat. What would it be typing in its ATOT? Nothing we could comprehend. How long would it take to teach us what it knows? How many times do we have to talk to that dang rat before it gets the principles of internal combustion. So I will call this new creature a Grue.

Grues know more than humans ever can. So they know everything? Hey what about Bleems? Oh I forgot to mention them. They have a nervous system 5 orders of magnitude greater than the Grue.

so
Humans can know what humans can know
Grues can know what Grues can know
Bleems can know what Bleems can know

They all follow the Axiom.
Now this question- What level does a creature have to attain to know more than it can know?

It never happens. Therefore there is always a potential mind that can know more than any given mind. That mind can imagine more, it can reason more and most importantly be AWARE of more than us. We look through a glass, darkly.

 

[heartsurgeon]

your premise and assumptions are just plain wrong.
you assume a geophysicist is a protein chemist, and that his suppositions are correct...not!

 

[Riprorin]

Other than the fact that the model was put forth by a geophysist and not a protein chemist, what are your objections?

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Doesn't that statement assume two things -- first, that there is no such thing as truth, and second, that religion is nothing more than a personal preference?

I wouldn't say that it's a personal preference as much as it is what one would be culturally most inclined to accept given the region they inhabit. That's what I meant by "closest at hand". Our understanding/acceptance of religion is defined by the one we are most exposed to. Once you pick up the particular ideology and subsequent mindframe closest to you, which I would say is an intrinsic reaction, being that we all need spirituality in one form or another, you sort of become integrated with it. It's hard to examine any other spiritual possibilities when you see through a specific set of eyes, thinks in terms of a specific set of expectations. It is to say that nothing else matters, as I have found the answer. Committing one's mind to a single possibility on the basis of one's inherent bias towards it, never really struck me as being a good thing to do.

 

[heartsurgeon]

you need not infer that all the molecules needed to create "primitive" life must be the result of totally random processes. there are non-random processes to account for as well, such as atomic and molecular interactions which will favor certain reactions (and drive them) and inhibit others.

the miller-urey apparatus (i built one in high school!) creates several amino acids out of "raw" materials (water, hydrogen, etc ) in the presence of heat and electrical discharge. the apparatus was actually a very clever simulation of a primordial enviroment. a water bath at the bottom of the closed system was heated to create convection within the system, and electrical sparks simulated lightening. cooling the upper portion of the apparatus completed the convective process. running the system for one week produced high concentrations of amino acids.

miller further placed this "soup" on heated clay tiles (simulating an ocean of primordial goo washing up on a beach!) and noted the formation of strands of amino acids (can you say protein?)

if you can create a sufficiently diverse "soup" of amino acids, producing an enviroment that would accelerate the formation of a biologically active protein would appear to me to be quite probability.

i don't believe that evolution and creationism actually are at odds with each other. if you accept that the universe behaves according to some rules ("Laws of Physics") and that the universe (matter, energy and time) came into existance ("The Big Bang"), i think it's perfectly reasonable to say that God created the Universe and its rules, and everything that has "evolved" from this creation is God's doing.

Now, you can quibble over the finer points of whose version of what historical text translated through multiple languages over eons is more accurate, and what the nuances and exact (or inexact) meaning of those texts are, but what's the point?

 

[Riprorin]

Many people think life was once created in a test tube from chemicals and energy in the 1950's. This is known as the Miner-Urey experiment. Here is what actually occurred. They sparked ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water, condensed it and ran it through a trap (do you think the early earth had traps and condensers?). The samples had to be isolated from the spark because a second spark would have destroyed any molecules that were formed). The results of these experiments were mostly tar and carboxylic acid, but a few amino acids were formed. Amino acids may be called the building blocks of life. But it is either gross ignorance or a lie to say they created true life in this experiment. Life requires many things. Long amino acid chains make proteins, chains in the proper order and shape. Millers experiment did NOT produce any chains. Life also requires DNA, RNA and never has any experiment produced DNA or RNA from base materials. Never have chains of DNA or RNA been produced, and never has a cell membrane been produced.

Here's some more points to consider:

- Life requires polymers. Polymerization requires bifunctional molecules (i.e. they combine with two others), and it is stopped by a small fraction of unifunctional monomers (that can combine with only one other, thus blocking one end of the growing chain). All "prebiotic simulations" experiments produce 5 times more unifunctional molecules than bifunctional molecules.

-Many of life's chemicals come in two forms, "left-handed" and "right-handed". Life requires polymers with all building blocks having the same handedness (homochirality) - proteins have only "left-handed" amino acids, while DNA and RNA have only "right-handed" sugars. Living things have special molecular machinery to produce homochirality. But ordinary undirected chemistry, as in the hypthetical primordial soup, would produce equal mixtures of left- and right-handed molecules, called racemates. Racemic polypepetides could not form the specific shapes required for enzymes; rather, they would have the side chains sticking randomly. Also, a wrong-handed amino acid disrupts the stabilizing a-helix in proteins. DNA could not be stabilized in a helix if even a small proportion of the wrong-handed form was present, so it could not form long chains. This means it could not store much information, so it could not support life. A small fraction of wrong-handed molecules terminates RNA replication.

 

[rahvin]

<< (do you think the early earth had traps and condensers?) >>



Ever heard of the water cycle?



<< The results of these experiments were mostly tar and carboxylic acid, but a few amino acids were formed. Amino acids may be called the building blocks of life. >>



Yep they created the building blocks of life. Pretty amazing actually. 30 days of simulated lightening and water cycle and we have a bunch of organic molecules.



<< Long amino acid chains make proteins, chains in the proper order and shape. >>



So to create proteins all we need is a catalyst that converts the amino acids into proteins.



<< Millers experiment did NOT produce any chains. >>



I would hardley expect it to, if we could create life in a continuosly running experiement such as this (and it hasn't continuosly ran) in 50 years I would be astounded that life was so easy to create.



<< Life also requires DNA, RNA and never has any experiment produced DNA or RNA from base materials. >>



I would like to see you prove that. Some scientists think it's required, others aren't so sure.



<< Never have chains of DNA or RNA been produced, and never has a cell membrane been produced. >>



Cell membranes are formed from a molecue that has a tendency to form little spheres due to electrical charges. These same molecues bunch up and form these little bubbles even today. In other words primative membranes are naturally occuring in the environment.



<< Life requires polymers. >>



Got a published paper proving this is true? There are some scientists that believe life could be based on elements other than carbon. Don't rigidly define something that isn't rigidly defined.



<< Many of life's chemicals come in two forms, "left-handed" and "right-handed". Life requires polymers with all building blocks having the same handedness (homochirality) - proteins have only "left-handed" amino acids, while DNA and RNA have only "right-handed" sugars. Living things have special molecular machinery to produce homochirality. But ordinary undirected chemistry, as in the hypthetical primordial soup, would produce equal mixtures of left- and right-handed molecules, called racemates. Racemic polypepetides could not form the specific shapes required for enzymes; rather, they would have the side chains sticking randomly. Also, a wrong-handed amino acid disrupts the stabilizing a-helix in proteins. DNA could not be stabilized in a helix if even a small proportion of the wrong-handed form was present, so it could not form long chains. This means it could not store much information, so it could not support life. A small fraction of wrong-handed molecules terminates RNA replication. >>



Refer to the above about placing rigid definitions on life. In addition, the first "life" as we define it was likely RNA but the precursers to that were undoubtably less complex. There are a lot of molecues and structures in the natural world that replicate themselves. Catalysts are common, take an organic soup toss in catalysts and a few billion years of trial and error and I think the odds are pretty good that you will end up with something similar to life.

You should also keep something else in mind. No matter how much you want to try to use the science against this they simply don't know enough about it for you to even attempt. The jury is still out, and will be out for a long time. There are no conclusions to draw (no matter how much you want to) when the knowledge isn't complete enough to do more than make theories and test them.

 

[Riprorin]

Would you have us believe that producing a few amino acids under controlled laboratory conditions is proof that life gradually evolved over billions of years from a single-cell organism formed by random chance in a primeval ocean?



<< Catalysts are common, take an organic soup toss in catalysts and a few billion years of trial and error and I think the odds are pretty good that you will end up with something similar to life. >>



What scientific evidence can you provide for this magic catalyst you speak of? What do you mean when you say the odds are "pretty good"? Could you be more specific?

 

[Rkonster]

You state that the universe it approximated to be 15 billion years old. Sure, what happened before that? Time didn't exist? I don't know about that. They way I see it, as time approaches infinity, the probabilities that you state to be impossibly small become possible.

 

[Riprorin]

The model places an upper bound at 30 billion years while many scientists believe that the universe is about 15 billion years old. However, the long ages postulated by evolutionists simply make matters worse, because there is more time for water's destructive effects to occur. While living cells have many ingenious repair mechanisms, DNA cannot last very long in water outside a cell. Condensing agents (water absorbing chemicals) require acidic conditions and they could not accumulate in water. Heating to evaporate water tends to destroy some vital amino acids, racemeize all the chiral amino acids, and requires gelogically unrealistic conditions. Besides, heating amino acids with other gunk inevitably present in the hypothetical primordial soup would destroy them.

(Taken from an article by Dr. John Sarfati)

 

[xirtam]

Engine:
I agree with you that cultural influences can shape our inclinations, however, there are a lot of things about my culture that I still choose to reject. So while culture is a factor, it can't be seen as an excuse to reject the truth. And I don't think we consciously commit to a single possibility on the basis of inherent bias, but of perceived truth. For example, I don't fault you for believing that the sum of two and two is four, even though you have been culturally shaped to be inherently biased toward that opinion. So the question still comes down to this: is it true? One should not accept a religion based on culture. I agree with you there.

Rahvin:
"Don't rigidly define something that isn't rigidly defined."
How do rigid definitions aquire their rigid definitions?

Rkconster: Infinite regress is a logical fallacy that cannot serve as the panacea to the evolutionary dilemma not only of abiogenesis, but also the upward progression of species from chaos to order. You do have to resort to an infinite regress if you buy into an uncreated system, though, and still want to remain scientific, or you must violate the first law of thermodynamics. With a system of infinite regression, though, you should approach infinite entropy at the present due to the postulation of the law of the second law of thermodynamics, shouldn't you? How do you account for the difference... scientifically speaking, not "because we have more time, that somehow excuses us from our scientific laws"?

 

[Dyflam]

<< Can random molecular interactions create life? >>



Take a look around...



<< a supernatural uncaused cause was the designer of this thing >>



Hmmmm... interesting concept.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hayabusariber, I have long subscribed to your idea of relative levels of attainable informational knowledge even if from the fact that we perceive only a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum and filter most of that. Where I would maybe diverge from your flightpath would be in the way I look at knowing and reasoning. What you are refering to as 'knowing and reasoning' I would more call 'having information and reasoning'. Knowing, to me is something different. We posess self consciousness, we are aware that we exist. The chimp may be too, perhaps, but I would thing a rat isn't too aware of his consciousness as a thing in itself. My point is that once you are self aware, you can't be more self aware. There is no Bleem that can be more self aware than self aware. The big question is, what is fully self aware?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Moonbeam- LOL I just spent 45 minutes replying to your post and Pfft!! cleared it out. Such is life
I am afraid that my response will be less precise due to time constraints, so please bear that in mind. We would have to be very careful as to what we mean by self aware of course, but if you have no objection, let us define it as you know you are a conscious entity. What I wonder is if there cannot be differing degrees of self awareness. If not then it is an all or nothing phenomenon I do not believe that all humans are equally self aware. Example- is a newborn as self aware as an adult? If so, then where in the development from egg and sperm to newborn does this occur? Or if it is after birth, when does tjat instant occur and why? Take a stroke victim. How much brain damage needs to occur before he is not self aware. This premise supposes that awareness resides in the brain. If the brain is pasturized and awareness survives, I have no way to verify that fact. In a wacky metaphysical moment I have wondered if the brain is not the source of who we are but more of an interface with this physical universe, connecting what is in effect an avitar (us as we here understand the use of the word) to a larger self. No matter, this is unverifiable and can lead to all sorts of digression. If individuals comprehend various levels of complexity about themselves, could not a truly superior being not be aware of more self subtleties? Perhaps that might be a definition of what is superior. I am self aware because I am. I think it in my terms and therefore it is. Would a creature that has incomprehensible (literally) mental abilities have the same definition for self awareness as us? Anyway I need to cut this short. Perhaps sometimes I will tell you about a remarkable creature from my intended ill fated post I named Foo-Foo the Snoo, who has the remarkable ability to increase her neural capacity at will when faced with a problem and the consequences and implications of that.

 

[rahvin]

<< Would you have us believe that producing a few amino acids under controlled laboratory conditions is proof that life gradually evolved over billions of years from a single-cell organism formed by random chance in a primeval ocean? >>



I wouldn't have you believe anything. As I said the jury is still out. There is simply not enough information to either discount or prove it to a higher level. What I'm telling you is that you are defining life based on it's current form, before single celled organisms existed something came before them that was less complex. That something may not fit your definition of life but it may very well have been capable of self-replication.



<< What scientific evidence can you provide for this magic catalyst you speak of? What do you mean when you say the odds are "pretty good"? Could you be more specific? >>



What magic catalyst? I said organic catalysts are common. A catalyst is a molecule that when it encounters a particular organic molecue it coverts that molecule into something else. Our cells are full of catalysts, most are proteins, some are much simpler.

As far as your odds statement, I was relating my opinion. Take an organic soup, add a ton of energy through different sources and a billion years and I believe there are good odds your going to end up with something other than a different organic soup. That's my opinion if you didn't catch it.



<< How do rigid definitions aquire their rigid definitions? >>



Because someone applies a definition that maybe incorrect to something. Definitions are artificial constraints placed by humans to facilitate our own learning and understanding. Just because you define something a certain way doesn't make your definition correct. It's the same bloody thing as making assumptions that could turn out to be incorrect.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hayabusarider, If I can try to sharpen up what I think I'm trying to say maybe I can add this: I think people tend to think of consciousness as a stream of consciousness. The flow of mental phenomena we experience, what I might refer to as epiphenomena. I don't mean that. It seems to me that there is something more subtile at the heart of consciousness, an emense silence, the music sheet on which the notes are written, the ether in which they sound. I see consciousness as the mirror on which the world is reflected internally, eternal abiding unchanged infinite. Whoever identifies his being, not with the epiphenomena, but with the infinitely empty-fullness swims in the sea of being with any and all who do the same. That which is without limit cannot be divided or compared.

 

[xirtam]

Rahvin, so when you said:



<< Don't rigidly define something that isn't rigidly defined. >>



you just meant not to assign false definitions to something? When the statement "Life requires polymers" is made, how is that an inaccurate statement? Do you know of any kind of life that does not require polymers? I think it's a fairly accurate distinction. Of course, life is far more complex than it's polymer composition.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

So the question still comes down to this: is it true?

2+2=4 is true as far as I know, but I see religion as a jump from that to "It's true as far as I know therefor it must be universally so". Giving our own truths unquestionable absolute value.

 

[Moonbeam]

We are 100% sure that life exists in the universe and we have 0, zero, in the way of scientific proof that there is a God. By the 'walks like a duck, looks like a duck' theory of common sense, life arose spontaneously. What is simple and obvious only becomes hard to swallow when you don't want to. The usual reason we don't want to is prior committment. If there weren't motivations in back of beliefs, a forth of the population, faced with the question would hold that there is no evolution and no God. It's the huge investment in the literalness of the Bible that clusters the theists and Creationists into Pro God anti evolution thinking. If it looks like bias it probably is.

 

[Riprorin]

<< We are 100% sure that life exists in the universe and we have 0, zero, in the way of scientific proof that there is a God. By the 'walks like a duck, looks like a duck' theory of common sense, life arose spontaneously. >>



What's common sensical about the theory that life has gradually evolved over billions of years from a single-cell oranism, supposedly formed by chance in a primeval ocean given that to produce a relatively short protein consisting of a chain of 200 amino acids, the numer of random trials needed for a reasonable likelihood of hitting a useful sequence is in the order of 20^100 (100 amino acid sites with 20 possible candidates at each site), or about 10^130 trials. This is a hundred billion times greater than the upper bound that has been computed for the total number of molecules ever to exist in the cosmos. No random process could ever hope to find even one such protein structure, much less the full set of roughly 1,000 needed in the simplest forms of life. It is therfore sheer irrationality for a person to beleive random chemical interactions could ever identify a viable set of functional proteins out of the truly staggering number of candidate possibilities. (John Baumgardner).



<< What is simple and obvious only becomes hard to swallow when you don't want to. The usual reason we don't want to is prior committment. If there weren't motivations in back of beliefs, a forth of the population, faced with the question would hold that there is no evolution and no God. It's the huge investment in the literalness of the Bible that clusters the theists and Creationists into Pro God anti evolution thinking. If it looks like bias it probably is. >>



Facts do not speak for themselves, they must be interpreted according to a framework. It is not a case of religion/creation/subjectivity versus science/evolution/objectivity. Rather, it is the biases of of the religions of Christianilty and of humanism interpreting the same facts in diametrically opposite ways.

The framework behind the evolutionists' interpretation is naturalsim/uniformitarianism: things made themeslves; no divine intervention has happened; and God, if He even exists has not revealed to us knowledge about the past.

The inherent thinking in the evolutionary mindset is illustrated by the following statements by Richard Lewontin, a genetist and leading evolution promoter. It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Gensis creation, regardless of whether the facts support it.

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagent promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior committment, a committment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialsim is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door".

(Taken from an article by Jonathan Sarfati)