Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utastro.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: SOR pamphlet #2 Message-ID: <822@utastro.UUCP> Date: Thu, 22-Nov-84 11:14:58 EST Article-I.D.: utastro.822 Posted: Thu Nov 22 11:14:58 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 24-Nov-84 21:02:15 EST Distribution: net Organization: UTexas Astronomy Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 280 If anything demonstrates the futility of arguing with Creationists by citing *facts*, this gem by Ray Miller does. Since this newsgroup was formed, many people have contributed numerous articles, which conclusively refute the positions he takes here. I would have thought Ray would be embarrassed to repeat these thoroughly discredited arguments in this forum, but apparently not. Having said that, I will now proceed to point out, again, some of the holes in Ray's arguments. I know it's futile, but perhaps some of the others out there will find it useful. > Evolutionists believe that these amazingly intricate living sys- > tems developed solely through time, chance, and natural processes. > Creationists, on the other hand, believe the design and organization > found in living organisms could only result from the acts of an intel- > ligent Creator. What scientific evidence leads the creationist to > this conclusion?...[Ray then proceeds to amaze us with the complexity of life] This is just the old "Argument from Design" -- "Look, how wonderful and complex life is, it must have had a Designer. Such things just could not have come about in any other way". The argument from design has been completely discredited, and is not taken seriously by anyone but Creationists anymore. It is bad theology and even worse science. Indeed, one can argue just as persuasively that life as we see it on Earth is so kludgy that it could *must* have arisen by chance. Rather than showing evidence of careful design, it shows instead incredible (and stupid) complexity, just what one would expect from opportunistic evolution. This kludgyness is seen both at the molecular level (where, for example, a very large proportion of the DNA in the human body codes for *absolutely nothing*), and at the organ level (remember the Panda's thumb, Ray? How about the human eye, whose overall design is clearly inferior to that of the octopus?) The solution that Nature has provided to the problem of life on Earth *is indeed* extraordinarily complex. But this implies absolutely nothing about how it may have arisen. It is not valid to conclude that there is anything at all remarkable about the *fact* that life exists on Earth. Indeed, we have only seen one possible example of life. The real question is, what other solutions are possible, and (in particular), how likely it is that *a* solution would have arisen under conditions similar to those found on the primitive Earth. > Given the vast complexities in even a simple cell, evolutionists > are forced to appeal to long time periods in order to justify the ori- > gin of life by means of chance chemical reactions. For example, the > prominent scientist Carl Sagan writes that: ``We need enzymes to make > polynucleotides, and polynucleotides to make enzymes. As a possible > way out of this quandary, I would like to suggest that we can trade > geological time for DNA polymerase or polynucleotide phosphorylase'' > [3]. So the question becomes: ``are long time periods and random > chance sufficient to produce the intricate systems found in a simple > cell?'' 20 years ago, when the Sagan article was written, it did indeed seem difficult to understand how cross-catalysis between enzymes and polynucleotides could have arisen. But a great deal has been discovered since then. One is the fact (which I mentioned before and which Ray has ignored) that RNA is autoatalytic (Kruger, Graboswki, Zaug, Sands, Gottschling and Cech, *Cell* 31, 147-152 (1982)). Thus it is reasonable to postulate a primitive mode of RNA replication that completely bypasses the need for enzymes. Enzymes would have evolved much later. I recently attended a lecture in which evidence was given for a very early RNA consisting of a 9-base sequence that, through a process of successive doubling, produced 18- and 36-base "hairpins" with paired bases, and then a 72-base "cloverleaf" molecule that became the present-day transfer RNA. A few more doublings then produced the very long RNA chains that we see today in ribosomal RNA. All of this could have been catalyzed by inorganic catalysts (e.g., clays) in the environment and by autocatalytic routes. Of course, once transfer RNA and ribosomes are produced, a great step towards the machinery required for protein synthesis has been made. The more the actual geological record is studied, the more evident it is that life formed quickly. The obvious conclusion is that the probability of forming life is very high, and that it doesn't take long periods of time to do it. We may not understand fully at the present time exactly how it happened, but there is no doubt that it did. It is simply invalid to reason that Creationism must be correct if scientists cannot at this moment explain everything about how life was formed. As the above examples show, we already know a great deal, and are learning more each day. The Creationist claim that life could not have arisen without the intervention of a Creator is simply not in accord with the facts. > It is estimated that the entire observable universe contains only > about 10^80 electrons. To be generous, suppose there were 10^80 nu- > cleotides, close enough together so that they could combine in chains > of length 1000 at the rate of one million combinations per second. > This process continues for five billion years (10^17 seconds). If > each chain was different, then (10^80)x(10^-3)x(10^6)x(10^17) = 10^100 > chains could be formed. What is the probability of obtaining any par- > ticular DNA gene as described by Salisbury above? The unfathomable > odds are (10^100)x(10^-600) = 10^-500 or 1 chance out of 1 followed by > 500 zeros! Ray should know by now that this is a red herring. It is completely irrelevant whether a *particular* gene is formed or not. As I pointed out before, the same argument can be used to "prove" that Ray Miller's particular gene compliment did not arise by chance combination of his parent's genes. Just as most random combinations of Ray's parents' genes would have produced a viable individual (but not Ray), the real question is what proportion of random combinations of bases would code for biologically active macromolecules. I have quoted evidence from several sources that indicates *this* probability is indeed high. Neither Ray nor anyone else has disputed these facts. It has also been pointed out many times that no biologist proposes the preposterous mode of producing genes that Ray suggests. Ray suggests that we put the nucleotides in a box and shake it up, so to speak, until, hey presto! Eventually we make an insulin gene. But there is direct evidence (which I have already posted) that the first genes were quite short, and that longer ones were obtained by a process of doubling and redoubling of short ones. The complex genes we see today are the result of at least 3.5 billion years of evolution. Nevertheless one sees at the molecular level clear evidence that genes with entirely different functions have arisen from the same common origins. If you want to talk probabilities, Ray, what is the probability of producing at random a particular 9-base sequence that is the precursor (through successive doubling) of today's genes? Answer: extremely high. > The eminent astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle wrote that: ``Troops of > monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the > works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observ- > able universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey > hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper > baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is > true for living material. As our ideas developed, a monstrous spectre > kept beckoning. Just as the brain of Shakespeare was necessary to pro- > duce the famous plays, so prior information was necessary to produce a > living cell. But information from where?'' [4]. With all due respect to Sir Fred, who has gotten in over his head on this one, and who in addition has an axe to grind: The analogy is false. This quote ignores the fact that chemical reactions are driven by characteristic reaction rates, and are not all equally probable, as has been mentioned on the net many times. *That* is where the organizing principle is to be found. > Close scrutiny, however, reveals many problems with Miller's ex- > periments and with similar subsequent work. First, the simple amino > acids and compounds produced so far are a long, long way from the com- > plex system of coordinated macromolecules necessary to support life. > Second, Miller's amino acids were a 50% 50% mixture of laevoro- > tary (L-form) and dextrorotary (D-form). These two types are mirror > images of each other, and can be thought of as left and right handed > molecules. It has been found that the proteins which contribute to > living protoplasm are, with very few exceptions, L-form. Even in an > extremely long chain of L-form molecules, the presence of a single D- > form can be lethal. Natural processes produce only racemates (50% 50% > mixture) - a condition totally unsuitable for life's proteins. > Third, the destruction rates of the components are far greater > than the production rates. For example, Miller's spark chamber in- > cluded a ``trap'' to remove the amino acids as soon as they were > formed. Otherwise, the same environment which produced them would > have quickly destroyed them. Creationists love to point to the trap in Miller's apparatus. The fact is that a trap is *not* necessary to prevent amino acids from being destroyed. Miller's experiment was done 30 years ago, but since then hundreds of other experiments have been performed, many without Miller's trap, under many conditions, and the result is that it is hard *not* to produce them. Why do Creationists harp on Miller's experiment as if it were the only one? One recent one was performed at the University of Illinois, where Ray works, by Professor Clifford Matthews. This process produces life precursors so copiously that it would have left the Earth "knee-deep" in protein. Why doesn't Ray know about this? Ray also ignores the fact, which has been mentioned before on the net, that meteors are found containing amino acids of clearly extraterrestrial, abiogenetic origin. If amino acids can be produced so easily in interplanetary space, how can we believe that they would be difficult to produce on Earth, where the conditions were so much more favorable? Finally, Ray fails to mention the fact, which he ought to know, that the L and D amino acids do not easily polymerize together. It is much more likely to get chains of L only and chains of D only than a random mixture of the two. Again this is driven by reaction rates involving the stereochemistry of polypeptides, and does not consider the probable pre-existence of structures such as ribosomes and transfer RNA's (see above) which would have facilitated the selective assembly of amino acids into into proteins. > Similarly, consider the amino acids and proteins. In a cell, > these are found along with the sugars which are the components of DNA, > RNA, and the larger carbohydrates. What natural affinities are > present here? Amino acids have the natural tendency to react with, > not only other amino acids, but also with sugars. The combination > with sugars produces non-biological components. If it were not for > the compartmentalizing design already in the cell, which controls when > and where reactions take place, the acids and sugars would destroy > each other, and the construction of proteins, DNA, and RNA would be > impossible. This one is a new one on me. Ray should read a bit about chemical clocks if he would like to understand how chemicals can be thouroughly mixed and yet produce complex dynamical behavior similar to that which takes place in a cell. > The second law of thermodynamics can be stated in several ways. > One definition is: ``An isolated system, free of external influence, > will, if it is initially in a state of relative order, always pass to > states of relative disorder until it eventually reaches the state of > maximum disorder'' [6]. The popular science writer Isaac Asimov > writes: ``As far as we know all changes are in the direction of in- > creasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, of > running down'' [7]. This well established law of science is predicted > by the creation model, but conflicts with the basic predictions of the > evolution model and must be explained by means of secondary modifica- > tions. Creationists frequently claim that Creationism *predicts* the second law of thermodynamics. This is mere grandstanding. To my knowledge they have never said anything more profound than what is said in this paragraph. They have provided no mathematical analysis that shows that the second law is actually a *consequence* of Creation. In fact, if the Creator is indeed "all-powerful", then there is no reason why She could not have created the Universe in a state of maximum disorganization, together with physical laws that would have caused it to become more and more organized with time. Thus, aside from the assertions of its supporters, Creationism "predicts" nothing at all in this regard. Ray accuses evolutionists of inventing "secondary modifications" of the second law to explain why it doesn't conflict with evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. The irreversible thermodynamic regime far from equilibrium, which has been studied extensively by Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine, characterizes much of the universe, and in particular the whole biosphere. This is no secondary modification, but in fact an entirely new major branch of physics. I recently asked Professor Prigogine his opinion of Creationist thermodynamics, and he replied that Creationists simply do not understand thermodynamics. He commented that, far from having arisen *in spite* of the second law, life is in fact a *consequence* of it. So Creationist misunderstanding of the second law is very profound. > In every instance when order increases, several prerequisites > must be met. First, the system must be open to available energy. > Evolution meets this requirement, since it is open to energy from the > sun. That, however, is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The > transformation to a higher energy state must be accompanied by an en- > ergy converting mechanism using a preset plan. Bricks only become a > house as an intelligent human discriminantly orders them according to > the blueprints. The seed grows into a tree as it follows the plan > stored in its genetic code, the DNA. Evolution, however, depends upon > chance chemical reactions and random mutations, and has no plan forc- > ing its direction upwards towards greater complexity. Ray's assertion that there must be a preset plan assumes the very thing he is trying to prove. The fact is, that *far from equilibrium*, organized systems do indeed arise spontaneously from states of lower organization. This is, of course, at the cost of net entropy production for the universe as a whole. A familiar example is a hurricane, which arises spontaneously from the available energy in the ocean and atmosphere when the conditions are favorable. This happens, not despite the laws of thermodynamics, but as a *consequence* of them. The spontaneous formation of organized structures is *characteristic* of far-from-equilibrium irreversible thermodynamics. > Thus, it seems as if the fields of probability, biochemistry, > thermodynamics, and information science all agree with the creation > model better than they do with the evolution model. Only if you ignore what these fields of science *really* have to say. The fact is that there is a lot we don't know about how life arose, but there is a lot we do know. None of what we know is in conflict with the above-mentioned fields. Because there is still much to be learned, Creationists can have fun (as Ray has) in ridiculing the field of biogenesis. But they can only do this at the expense of truth. -- "When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve" Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)