On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 00:32:45 EDT, Biochmborg@aol.com wrote:
Unfortunately, this post also is shaping up to be bigger than Ben Hur, so I
am cutting it into parts and answering each part in strict chronological order.
This means I will finish off answering Kevin's original post before I answer any
subsequent replies.
[...]
>>>MB>...A professional scientist, however, is supposed to put aside personal
>>>>biases as much as possible and let the facts speak for themselves.
>>KO>It is interesting that Behe should write this. When he published an
>>>editorial in the Daily Telegraph in which he said that the inevitable
>>>result of any origin-of-life experiment was goo and not living cells, I
>>>wrote to him and described the research involving proteinoid
>>>microsphere protocells.
>SJ>But before I can comment on the above, I would appreciate it if
>Kevin could post Behe's "editorial in the Daily Telegraph"...as well as
>details, with references of this "research involving proteinoid microsphere
>protocells".
KO>My apologies; it was in the Weekly Standard, back on June 7th. I
>had thought it had been posted to this listgroup, but I cannot find it in
>the archive. Therefore, I will repost it separately.
Thanks to Kevin for reposting it but now I know it was "the Weekly Standard"
I already have this review. It has been posted on the ARN website at:
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_godofscience.htm)
It should be noted that this was just a one-page *book review* for a
weekly magazine not a full-length article in a a scientific journal. Behe no
doubt had to keep it simple, because of space limitations and the level of
knowledge of the average layman reader.
Kevin is `scraping the bottom of the barrel' to accuse Behe of having "willfully
lied" in such circumstances. If Kevin accused Behe of lying it is no wonder
that Behe would have nothing more to do with Kevin!
KO>The details of the research are quite simple (references will be
>provided in a separate post):
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 00:33:15 EDT, Biochmborg@aol.com wrote:
KO>This bibliography is hardly complete, but each reference has more
>references that will lead to still more references, so it is a good start
>for any reading into the relevant research.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to Kevin for this *bibliography*, but it is not what I requested. I
asked Kevin for "*details*, with references of this `research involving
proteinoid microsphere protocells'".
What I had in mind initially was the details with references that Kevin
supplied to Mike Behe when Kevin said:
"I wrote to him and described the research involving proteinoid
microsphere protocells."
I request that Kevin initially post to the Reflector the same info. that he
supplied to Behe.
This should be easy for Kevin because he has already supplied it to Mike
Behe. But if it turns out that all that Kevin supplied to Behe in order to
support his claims about "proteinoid microsphere protocells", was a
"bibliography" with "each reference" having "more references that will lead
to still more references" it would not be surprising that Behe declined to
discuss the matter further with Kevin!
I certainly am not satisfied in a *debate* being referred to a "bibliography".
After all, *anybody* could respond to questioning of their claims with an
infinite regress of bibliographical references. By the time Kevin's opponent
had returned from researching Kevin's "bibliography" with "each reference"
that "has more references that will lead to still more references", Kevin
would have long gone and everyone else would have forgotten what the
original issue was!
Therefore what I request Kevin to do is support his claims with *details*,
ie. quotes and references, prefaced with Kevin's own comments.
I am prepared to do this for my claims, and others on this Reflector are
prepared to do this for their claims. So if Kevin fails to do this, I will
assume that he does not really have the evidence to support his claims.
KO>anhydrous mixtures of amino acids that contain at least 1%
>glycine, aspartate, glutamate or lysine can, upon being heated between
>50 and 200 degrees C, selectively copolymerize into nonrandom polyamino
>acids called proteinoids or thermal proteins. These spontaneously form, when
>rehydrated, hollow double-layer membraned spheroids called microspheres of
>uniform size and shape.
Yockey points out that Fox's protenoids' dependance on the amino acids
"aspartate" and "glutamate" is unrealistic since Glycine and Alanine
are by far the most abundant amino acids formed by chemical evolution
experiments:
"Amino acids decompose at the temperature needed, 150-180 degrees C,
so that the heating period must be artificially short. Furthermore, since Gly
and Ala are by far the most abundant amino acids formed by chemical
evolution, it is doubtful that the appropriate amounts of Glu and Asp,
required by the proteinoid synthesis, existed in the lagoons as postulated. '
Prebiotic ' experiments show conclusively that mixtures of pure a-amino
acids, similar to the experiments of Fox, did not exist on the primeval
Earth. The proposed polymerization would certainly be stopped by a
variety of molecules that have been shown to be formed in simulation
experiments (Horowitz & Hubbard, 1974). A glaring weakness of the
proteinoid scenario is that it requires a highly concentrated and intimate
mixture of a specific selection of amino acids as noted by Ponnamperuma
(1983)." (Yockey H.P., 1992, p269)
KO>These microspheres look and act like modern cells in every
>important detail, except that they do not contain genetic material.
This is self-evidently false, because if it were true, it would mean that
"genetic material" was not really necessary for *any* "important detail" of
"modern cells", which is absurd.
Thaxton, et. al., conclude that proteinoid "microspheres possess only
outward likenesses and nothing of the inward structure and function of a
true cell":
"In the present-day cell, there are thousands of different chemical reactions
taking place. Not even one chemical reaction takes place in microspheres,
only mechanical and physical processes due to simple, attractive forces. We
question listing these purely physical forces as resemblances to true cell
processes. In truth, they have scant relation to actual processes in living
cells. Actually, microspheres possess only outward likenesses and nothing
of the inward structure and function of a true cell. They contain no
information content, no energy utilizing system, no enzymes, no nucleic
acid, no genetic code, and no replication system. They contain only a
mixture of polymers of amino acids, the so-called proteinoids. Microspheres
cannot be said to be living in any sense of the word, and it is questionable
whether they should even be given the name "protocell." They are merely
an aggregation of polymers, and do not help to bridge the gap between life
and non-life." (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of
Life's Origin", 1992, p175)
KO>Thus
>they are called protocells, and those that are capable of transforming
>sunlight into chemical energy and which use that chemical energy to
>synthesize polynucleotides, from which they synthesize polypeptides, are
>called metaprotocells.
Thanks to Kevin for this, but it is not clear if this is a quote or Kevin's
own words. If the former, I request Kevin to provide the reference.
[...]
>SJ>Without seeing the article, I would assume that what Behe meant by
>>"origin-of-life experiment" resulting in "goo" was the *Miller-Urey*
>>type of origin-of-life experiment.
KO>As I stated above, Behe said "origin of life experiments"; he used the
>plural, indicating that he was referring to experiments other than just
>Miller-Urey.
I said "Miller-Urey *type* of origin-of-life experiment"! Miller did his
original experiments in *1953* and there have been plenty of similar
experiments since then using the same research paradigm of applying
various forms of energy to gases and chemicals to yield amino acids. Behe
no doubt had in mind this mainstream line of research.
In any event, Fox's proteinoids *starts* with amino acids which would have
had to be produced by Miller-Urey type chemical evolution processes. So
the "goo" problem of Miller-Urey type chemical evolution experiments is
still a problem for Fox's proteinoids which depend on such processes to
produce their amino acids in the first place.
There is a simple test of this. If it is so easy to make proteinoids
naturally, it should be easy to find them forming in nature today. The facts
that Fox depends entirely on carefully contrived and intelligently controlled
human *experiments* shows that they are unrealistic as a natural process.
KO>Here is the relevant quote: "Isn't it 'the constraint of
>lawful regularity' that turns chemicals in origin-of-life experiments into
>goo at the bottom of the test tube, rather than into primitive cells?" The
>context of this sentance indicates that Behe is talking about the inevitable
>results of any experiment in general, not the results of one or a few
>specific experiments.
See above. I presume from the reference to "test tube" Behe was thinking
of Miller-Urey type experiments, which take place in enclosed special glass
containers.
In any event, it seems that there is "goo" in at least some proteinoid
microsphere experiments
"It is vitally important to draw attention to the fact that these model
experiments carried out on the laboratory bear little resemblance to what
could have occurred on the primeval earth. The primeval soup, by
definition, had to be a complex mix of thousands upon thousands of
different molecules. If this soup had dried up on exposed volcanic rocks it
is extremely doubtful if amino acids could have polymerized as might be
suggested from these simple experiments. The most likely product would
have been a horrible tarry 'goo'." (Croft L.R., "How Life Began", 1988,
p48)
Yockey cites Fox's collaborator Klause Dose saying of Fox's microspheres
that:
"Side reactions lead to largely unknown substances (tar) that are linked to
the polymerized amino acids (Dose, 1976)."(Yockey H.P., 1992, p269)
Nobel laureate biochemist Christian De Duve said that "the resulting
material" from heating "a dry mixture of amino acids for three hours at 170
degrees C" has "more in common with primeval `goo' than with proteins":
"For Fox, this discovery initiated a lifelong avocation. He found that
proteinoids spontaneously form microscopic vesicles, or "microspheres,"
which he saw as the first cells, and spent his whole career pursuing these
studies. Few origin-of-life experts are as sanguine as Fox concerning the
significance of his results. It has been objected that the conditions required
for the formation of proteinoids are not likely to have obtained on the
prebiotic Earth, that the resulting material has more in common with
primeval "goo" than with proteins, and that the microspheres are a far cry
from anything that could be called a cell. I tend to share these
misgivings..." (de Duve C.R., "Vital Dust: Life as a Cosmic Imperative",
1995, p29)
Origin-of-life specialist Robert Shapiro says that when *realistic* ratios of
amino acids are heated "the result was pyrolysis to a dark brown tar with a
disagreeable odor":
This remedy, when tried, had been found wanting, however. "Biochemists
knew that when a mixture of amino acids in the ratio found in proteins was
heated, the result was pyrolysis to a dark brown tar with a disagreeable
odor," commented chemist William Day." (Shapiro R., "Origins: A
Skeptic's Guide to the Origin of Life", 1986, p193).
Only when *unrealistic* ratios of amino acids are used was the result
"clean" but then "the products obtained were not natural proteins":
"At this point Sidney Fox made a contribution. Fox set aside the usual
recipes and added extra amounts of any of three special amino acids. These
mixtures, when heated in the dry state well above the boiling point of
water, gave clean preparations, in which the amino acids had united with
one another. The products obtained were not natural proteins, however,
even though they were made from amino acids. The special amino acids
mentioned above contained either an extra amino or an extra acid group. In
normal proteins, these extra groups do not take part in chain formation, but
this had occurred in the heating process. Unnatural chains, even branched
chains, had been produced." (Shapiro R., 1986, p193).
KO>Besides, Behe made no such correction as Steve suggest when I
>asked him about it.
Behe did not *need* to make a "correction". First, Fox's proteinoid
experiments depend on amino acids produced by Miller-Urey type chemical
evolution processe, which do produce mostly "goo". And second, even
Fox's proteinoid experiments produce "goo" unless they are unrealistically
contrived not to by highly artificial types, quantities and purity of
amino acids and human control of heating and cooling.
But in any even, as stated previously, I expect that Behe had no desire to
carry on a private debate with Kevin. From my enquiries, Kevin is well-
known in the ID movement for "harassing" ID proponents with private
emails, and I am told that he has called at least one other leading ID
scientist who disagreed with him a "liar", and even an "idiot".
And it is not as though Kevin is a leading scientist, who professors of
biochemistry like Behe have to sit up and take notice of. On his web
page at http://hometown.aol.com/biochmborg/biography.htm, Kevin
describes himself as "...just a lowly research assistant" who has only
"personal interests in several unusual subjects" which include "one
particular model for the origin of life: the proteinoid microsphere
model for protocells" and in which "So far" Kevin says he has "been
unable to do any research in that field".
Indeed, I find it significant that Kevin describes "the proteinoid
microsphere model for protocells" as an "unusual subject". I would have
thought that if it is as mainstream as Kevin makes out there would be
nothing "unusual" in a biochemistry graduate like Kevin studying it .
KO>His responses to me indicated that he included proteinoid
>microsphere research in with his "goo" statement.
I doubt this is what Behe "indicated". But even if he did, he is
correct because: 1) "proteinoid microsphere research" depends on
Miller-Urey type chemical evolution to produce its amino acids; 2)
"proteinoid microsphere research" if it is realistic does produce
"goo".
KO>Since he knows that such research does not produce "goo" but in fact
>living cellular structures
Behe "knows" no such thing. That Fox and Kevin might redefine "life" to
fit what these so-called "proteinoids" do and then claim they are "living" is
circular reasoning.
If these were really "living cellular structures" Fox wouldn't need to
produce any more proteinoids by experiments. All he would need to do is
let them reproduce like *real* "living cellular structures".
KO>he knew that his statement was factually incorrect when he wrote it.
See above. Behe's "statement was" *not* "factually incorrect". First he
probably had in mind the Miller-Urey type of experiment, which seems
likely in view of is reference to "test tube" above. Second, Fox's
protenoids depend on a Miller-Urey type of chemical evolution process to
produce the amino acids that they use in the first place. Third, even Fox's
proteinoid experiments usually produce "goo" unless they are artificially
contrived and controlled not to.
KO>What would Steve call the deliberate writing of a statement that the
>writer knows is incorrect, if Steve doesn't call it a lie?
The point is that Kevin has not shown that Behe has deliberately written a
statement that Behe *knows* is incorrect. If Behe was thinking of Miller-
Urey type of experiments, then he truthfully wrote what he thought was
correct. And even if Behe was thinking of Fox's proteinoid experiments,
then Behe was still not "incorrect" because proteinoid experiments, to the
extent they are realistic, do either depend on the chemical evolution of
amino acids which produces much "goo", or they make "goo" themselves.
I find it interesting and significant that Kevin appears to have a need to find
Behe guilty of HAVING "willfully lied" in order to discredit him
personally. This to me is evidence that Kevin's case is weak and he needs to
`shoot the messenger' so he doesn't have to listen to the message.
>>KO>Indeed, he gave every impression of not only knowing about the
>>research.
>SJ>This seems unlikely that Behe did not know about "research
>>involving proteinoid microsphere protocells" because Behe actually *wrote*
>>about Fox's proteinoids in "Darwin's Black Box":
>>
>>"For example, a scientist named Sidney Fox proposed that perhaps
>>some amino acids got washed up from the primordial ocean onto a very hot
>>surface, such as the rim of an active volcano.
KB>To my knowledge, Fox never proposed this scenario, though others
have.
Then the problem seem's to be with Kevin's "knowledge". According to
Shapiro, Fox was indeed involved in such "volcano" experiments:
"Professor Fox and his co-workers have been agile and flexible in
attempting to meet such criticisms. Initially they suggested the rims of
volcanoes as plausible sites where the necessary temperatures could
be provided that were needed to form the proteinoids. Rain would
subsequently remove them from the volcanoes and convert them to
microspheres. To illustrate this concept, a sample of lava was
collected at a volcanic site in Hawaii and brought to the laboratory of
Professor Fox. The preparation of microspheres was then carried out
within a depression of the lava sample. This scenario was subsequently
extended to other locations." (Shapiro R., 1986, p197).
KB>What he instead proposed was an environment similar to the
>Yellowstone hot springs of today.
That Fox also proposed "hot springs" does not mean he did not originally
propose volcanoes. Orgel also indicates that Fox originally proposed
volcanos as the heat source since that was thought to be the only place on
Earth where temperatures were high enough to polymerise amino acids:
"If a solution of amino acids is heated gently, water is driven off and a solid
cake of organic material is left behind. On stronger heating, chemically
bound water is eliminated and, under certain circumstances, peptides are
formed....However, the reaction does not occur at temperatures
substantially below 130 degrees C. The highest temperatures reached at the
surface of the earth today, except in volcanoes, is close to 80 degrees C,
and it seems unlikely that substantially higher temperatures occurred at the
surface of the primitive earth. Thus the thermal polymerization of amino
acids by direct heating could have occurred only in volcanoes. Reasons for
questioning that volcanoes were important for the origins of life have been
given already...However, this is an undecided issue and a number of
authors, particularly the American scientist Dr. Sidney Fox, believe that
volcanoes played a major role in the synthesis of organic polymers on the
primitive earth." (Orgel L.E., "The Origins of Life", 1973, p139)
KB>The springs would provide the water and other ingredients to create the
>amino acids, and the underlying geothermal heat would provide the
>energy necessary to dry-up isolated pools of water, then copolymerize
>the anhydrous amino acids into proteinoids. Rain or overflow from a nearby
>spring would then rehydrate the proteinoids and cause them to form
>microspheres. But this is by no means the only plausible scenario. All
>that is really needed is periodic dehydration/rehydration and enough heat to
>perform the copolymerization.
Davis and Kenyon summarise the "Problems with Proteinoid Microspheres":
"First, in his experiment Fox used mixtures containing only protein-forming
L- amino acids. Where on the primitive earth could such a mixture have
occurred? We have already seen that thousands of interfering cross-
reactions would have occurred in the soup, preventing the successful
fulfillment of Assumption No. 3 of Oparin's hypothesis. These would have
tied up protein-forming amino acids like Fox used. Some of these
substances would have combined directly with amino acids thus blocking
the formation of proteinoids. For example, we have already seen how
sugars react with amino acids to form the nonbiological compound known
as melanoidin. Because of such cross-reactions, which Oparin assumed did
not occur, it is very unlikely that proteinoids could have formed under
natural conditions on a primitive earth. In short, many scientists agree that
Fox's use of selected and purified amino acid mixtures isn't realistic.
Second, there is disagreement about the proposed sequence of events
which supposedly occurred near volcanoes. The required combination of
high and low temperatures, with rainstorms occurring just at the right time
and place, seems unrealistically "choreographed" and highly improbable to
many scientists. Even if proteinoids did form, the heat which formed them
would also have destroyed them or they would have broken down
spontaneously before they could have played a role in the formation of life.
Most important of all, even if these problems were solved, big differences
exist between proteinoid microspheres and the very simplest living cells. "
(Davis P. & Kenyon D.H., "Of Pandas and People," 1993, p53).
KO>As I pointed out earlier, this is not necessary. Simple evaporation
>under a hot sun, such as you can find in any arid region nowadays, would be
>sufficient.
So we don't even need volcanos, or "hot springs"? We should be able to go
and find naturally occurring proteinoids anywhere there is "Simple
evaporation under a hot sun...such as" we "can find in any arid region
nowadays" Especially since they are supposed to be "living"? There should
be *millions* of them, not only being spontaneously created new, but many
more that are the *offspring* of all the originally created proteinoids over the
last 3.8 billion years?
And then why do we need Fox's high-tech laboratory experiments to produce
proteinoids if they are geologically and bichemically realistic and can be formed
naturally anywhere there is "Simple evaporation under a hot sun, such as you
can find in any arid region nowadays"?
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of
chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the
immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its
solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in
the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance. New lines
of thinking and experimentation must be tried." (Dose K., "The Origin of
Life: More Questions Than Answers", Interdisciplinary Science Reviews,
Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, p348)
--------------------------------------------------------------------