On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 22:36:46 -0700, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>SJ>The articles seem contradictory, unless:
>
>1) L-amino acids were generated in outer space, travelled millions of
>kilometres to Earth, and then fell into a volcano or hydrothermal vent (all
>the while preserving their left-handedness), where>>
PM>Why not ? Please explain why these amino acids would change their
>left handedness ?
The burden of proof is on those who claim it. The facts are:
1. No extra-terrestrial non-racemic (ie pure L- or R-handed ) amino acids
have ever been found. There has been claims of 90% L-amino acids
found but these were non-biological amino acids.
2. All terestrial amino acids that are not part of a living organism are
racemic (ie. a mixture of L- and R- handed).
3. All non-racemic amino acids become racemic over time after the
organism dies. There is even a test of which uses this to measure how long
ago the organism died.
>SJ>2) they were synthesised into peptides which joined up to forms a self-
>replicating protein, which
>
>3) somehow managed to team up with separately originated piece(s) of
>RNA, which
>
>4) in turn developed genetic code(s) which
>
>5) started to synthesise those self-same proteins!
>>>
>
PM>You must surely aware of some of the excellent work which has
shown that such is hardly as far fetched as you sound it to be. Fox and
others have gone through many of the steps required.
Please give *details* with *references*. If you are referring to Sidney's
Fox's so-called "proteinoids" theory, origin-of-life specialist Robert Shapiro
observed that Fox's it has the unique distinction of being criticised for its
lack of "relevance" by both evolutionists and creationists:
"Sidney Fox has not merely served as a rallying point for the proteins- first
group, but has advocated the particular system of proteinoid microspheres,
first demonstrated in his laboratory in the late 1950s, as the solution to the
origin-of-life problem. Needless to say, this position has made him a center
of controversy. ... it has attracted a number of vehement critics, ranging
from chemist Stanley Miller and astronomers Harold Urey and Carl Sagan
to Creationist Duane Gish. On perhaps no other point in origin-of-life
theory could we find such harmony between evolutionists and Creationists
as in opposing the relevance of the experiments of Sidney Fox. (Shapiro R.,
"Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Origin of Life", Summit Books: New
York, 1986, pp191-192)
>SJ>Now *that* would be a miracle! Who said materialist-naturalists were
>unbelievers?>>
PM>Nice strawman dear Stephen but little miracles are needed. Certainly
>none like 'God did it', that would be a true miracle.
It is *you* who are creating a "strawman" Pim. I did not say that "God-
did-it" in the sense of one big "true miracle". Personally I believe that the
origin of life and macro-evolution in general were probably what Geisler
calls "second class miracles":
"It may be that some things are so highly unusual and coincidental that,
when viewed in connection with the moral or theological context in which
they occurred, the label "miracle" is the most appropriate one for the
happening. Let us call this kind of supernaturally guided event a second
class miracle, that is, one whose natural process can be described
scientifically (and perhaps even reduplicated by humanly controlled natural
means) but whose end product in the total picture is best explained by
invoking the supernatural." (Geisler N.L., "Christian Apologetics," Baker:
Grand Rapids MI, 1976, pp277-278)
In any event a *series* of "little miracles" is probability-wide effectively the
same as one big miracle:
"The same is true of Dawkins' hypothetical evolutionary model. Although
the earlier steps in his evolution process are seen retrospectively to
contribute to the end result, that does not affect the probability of each
intermediate step coming about at the time. It is perfectly true that the
minimum overall probability we have to deal with in considering the
evolution of a human eye is a product of all the probabilities of the
individual steps necessary to attaining that end - but paradoxically, this
does not diminish the probability of each individual step when the need for
the correct sequence is also taken into account. What Dawkins is saying
with his cumulative evolution argument is that the probability of each single
step in a cumulative process must be less than the whole probability of
leaping straight to the finished result, simply because each step itself is less
than the whole. But this is simply wrong. The improbability of step number
2 correctly following step number 1, correctly followed by step number 3
and so on for 100 mutations, is as great as leaping to the 100th step in one
go. What is more, the greater the number of steps into which we break up
the overall leap, the more improbable it becomes that they will all take
place in the right order. Mutation number one might be the first step in
evolving an eye (or magnetic detector or infra-red detector or X-ray
detector). But the probability of the next mutation step affecting that organ
being the second step needed for an eye is not increased thereby. It does
not become any easier for an eye to come into being just because the first
of the 100 or 1,000 accidents needed has taken place, even if that first step
is a very important general innovation such as light-sensitive tissue."
(Milton R., "The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myth of Darwinism," Fourth
Estate: London, 1992, pp144-145)
For example, if each step in the chain had an average probability of 10^-6
(ie. 1 in a million), for all five to happen in a series is the product of
all five multiplied together, ie:
10^(-6*5) = 10^-30. That is 1 chance in:
1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
By way of comparison, there have been about 10^18 seconds elapsed since
the Big Bang 15 billion years ago, ie:
1 000 000 000 000 000 000
Yet 10^30 is a trillion (1 000 000 000 000) times larger than 10^18
Now it might be argued that some of the steps required might be less than
1 in a milion and some might be more. None AFAIK have actually been
demonstrated to happen in either nature or a laboratory without human
intervention, so they might *all* be impossible for unaided natural
processes.
This is why Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and one
of the world's leading biochemists, said that:
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could
only state that in some sense, the origin life appears at the moment to be
almost a miracle, SO MANY ARE THE CONDITIONS WHICH WOULD
HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN SATISFIED TO GET IT GOING." (Crick
F., "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature," Simon & Schuster: New York,
1981, p88. Emphasis.)
PM>The only true miracle here is your strawman.
Pim, I am used to your `fact-free' posts by now, so I am not biting! But
thanks for giving me the opportunity to expand on my earlier post.
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 22:42:28 -0700, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>SJ>It is ironic that this article casts doubt on Darwin's `warm little pond'
>theory (which was really just a footnote to a letter), and will no doubt
>help cement in the public mind that `Darwin's theory' is wrong!
PM>Unlikely since Darwin's theory of evolution is not about 'warm little
>ponds' but about observations and data. The warm little pond hypothesis
>is about abiogenesis, the possible origins of life as we know it. Darwin
>envisioned the 'warm little ponds' others have found 'black smokers' which
>show a remarkable little biosphere.
The fact is that a million people in Western Australian read on the front
page of their major newspaper that doubt was thrown on Darwin's origin of
life theory. I doubt that the layman would know the difference between
Darwin's origin of life theory and his evolution theory. That's why I said it
was "ironic".
PM>Which one is the more likely one ? Research and time will tell. But
>unless you were reading a different article than I was, it only addressed
>black smokers as being a possible alternative or additional location where
>live (could have) evolved.
I was referring mainly to the West Australian which had the headline
"Science Creates the Dawn of Life".
BTW I am not aware of any evidence that "smokers" even existed 3.5
billion years ago when life first appears in the rocks. Another article I
posted pointed out that the oldest "smokers" on Earth are only 27,000 years
old and they are only active for 2,000 years at a time.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------