A Handy-Dandy Formula for Summarizing Abiogenesis?

[Wowbagger]

Thanks to an infusion of knowledge on the subject, (including books recommended here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102459 ), I believe I have a relatively good, amateur's grasp of abiogenesis. I couldn't help but notice a common pattern in all of the sources perused. They all seem to indicate, in many more words, the following:

Catalytic Process = Probability Increaser

It seems to me that the more types of catalytic (and self-catalytic) processes you can identify among organic molecules, the greater the chances of life (or something like it), will emerge and thrive! (Especially since carbon seems to be one of the most versatile elements on the Periodic Table.)

I was wondering if we could use this type of approach when answering certain Creationist challenges, such as:

* The "747" Argument: "The chances of life emerging are the same as a tornado assembling a fully functional 747, by moving through a junk yard."
* The "Lightening in a Puddle" depiction: "Scientists believe life started when lightning struck a puddle of ooze, and it just happened to form a fully functional cell."
* The "Black Box" claim: " 'Emergence' is a word only used as a substitute for an explanation, instead of providing one."
* Etc.

Each of these already has their separate answers (the first is an application of Texas Sharp-Shooter fallacy, the second is a strawman, and the third is the opposite of reality), but I think we might be able to knock all of them down with a single blow.

One could point to the above, "handy-dandy", formula to show that random chance plays no significant part in the studies. And, rather than being some "black box", abiogenesis actually strives to map out all of the nitty-gritty, step-by-step, details of how life could emerge, based on what we discover through physics and chemistry!

Some general examples:
* How amino acids are built, spontaneously, in Urey-Miller-type experiments
* How peptide nucleic acids (PNA) could lead to the development of RNA
* How various enzymes and ribozymes breakdown, and rebuild, various molecules
* Etc.

You could also get into self-catalytic systems - Molecules that replicate themselves:

* The BZ Reaction
* Self-replicating peptides
* Etc.

If it turned out that we could only find a very tiny number of such things, then we might have to concede that "a miracle occurred here". But, in reality, what we have uncovered is an embarrassment of riches: There are so many different ways for different molecules to do different things, that the emergence of life becomes more and more inevitable, the more we discover about it!

If scientists felt it was all only a matter of chance, you would expect dice rolls and complete guess work, in place of careful documentation on the development of lipid bilayers (for example). My proposed "Handy-Dandy Formula for Abiogenesis" summarizes why, clearly and distinctly.

What does everyone think?

(And, any contributions of good examples of catalysts, to help make (or break) my point, would also be appreciated.)

 

[dahduh]

All catalysis does is increase the rate of reactions. If you believe there is a 1 in 10^50 chance of something happening over the age of the universe, then the fact that a catalyst increases a reaction rate by 100 doesn't mean much.

I think a better strategy is to emphasize that chemicals don't assemble by chance, but are guided by the laws of physics. Example: if you toss a marble into an empty pool and it rolls to the lowest point and stops, how incredible is that? Amazing. But of course it ended up there because of physics, not chance. Applied to abiogenesis, it's easy to see that any molecule that has even a slight advantage over any other in self-replication will quickly dominate the population - and here catalysis can play a decisive role, in selecting which molecular varieties will end up as life.

I'm not convinced either that an 'embarrassment of riches' is particularly significant either. Yes, there are lots of potential reactions that can happen, but the only one that matters is the one with the highest exponential growth factor. I wouldn't be surprised if or when we eventually discover life elsewhere, that it won't be very similar to what we find here at the molecular level, DNA and all.

 

[Wowbagger]

All catalysis does is increase the rate of reactions. If you believe there is a 1 in 10^50 chance of something happening over the age of the universe, then the fact that a catalyst increases a reaction rate by 100 doesn't mean much.

It is number of different types of catalysis that is important for the argument.

The more different types of catalysis we find, according to argument, the more likely something "useful" to the formation of life will be catalyzed naturally.

I think a better strategy is to emphasize that chemicals don't assemble by chance, but are guided by the laws of physics.

That is an integral part of my argument.

Example: if you toss a marble into an empty pool and it rolls to the lowest point and stops, how incredible is that? Amazing. But of course it ended up there because of physics, not chance.
(snip)

That analogy could be useful.

Thanks for the response!

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, personally my answer are ribozymes: a pretty short RNA chain (entirely within the possibilities of random probability when you have a whole bloody planet sized test tube and billions of moles of components and billions of years) can replicate itself.

That's really all you need. Once you have replication, you're subject to natural selection, and everything else goes from there.

We don't have to have a full cell formed from the start. We have to have _something_ which replicates.

Life as we know it today is just the continuation of that. A cell is ultimately just a test tube which regulates the heck out of the composition inside. Sure, it's a major advantage to get that far, but the simplest form of self-replication doesn't absolutely need that.

Also note that the simplest forms of self-replication don't even need proteins (or for that matter aminoacids) at all, simplifying the whole process massively. Proteins would, of course, become a major advantage later (and doubly so after free oxygen became available), but for a start even just RNA would do.

Even the earliest cells wouldn't absolutely need a lot of the trappings of the modern cells. E.g., the whole antioxidants would not be needed in an atmosphere which doesn't have free oxygen. Nor DNA for the exact same reason: in an anoxic solution, RNA survives quite long. More than enough to replicate anyway. E.g., the whole mechanisms for synthesising some aminoacids from others, didn't need to be there when there was a whole planet producing aminoacids naturally. Etc.

Probably 99.99% of what's in a modern cell is really just "nice to have" stuff. Well, "very very nice to have." Confering a major advantage, even. But what was really needed was _something_ a lot less complex, and a lot less perfect, which could replicate itself. Natural selection can take it from there.

Helpful Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world

 

[Wowbagger]

We don't have to have a full cell formed from the start. We have to have _something_ which replicates.

I don't think that will be good enough for debating Creationists. I get what you are saying. I have read The Selfish Gene twice, (and many other books about this stuff).

But, I think the Creationists are specifically going to challenge us on the whole cell. Just because we got ribozymes doing most of the work, for us, is not going to satisfy them. We need to demonstrate how we have identified a lot more chemical processes, that explain how (almost) every part of the cell emerged, over time.

Even the earliest cells wouldn't absolutely need a lot of the trappings of the modern cells.

Though, it probably would still be important to mention this, I suppose: That Cells, themselves, are the product of an evolutionary process, and did not just pop-up fully formed, one lucky day.

Also note that the simplest forms of self-replication don't even need proteins (or for that matter aminoacids) at all, simplifying the whole process massively.

Waaay back in December 2006, I actually started a thread about non-living replicators:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69697

In my experience, bringing them up did not seem to help drive home any points, in the minds of most Creationists. They will not deny that other things can replicate. But, since they remind us that they are "not alive" it does not prove anything, to them.

I am wondering if this new approach, explaining the "handy-dandy" formula, might work better.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, to be honest, I don't expect that you'll convince (m)any die-hard creationists, no matter what theory or evidence you have.

It's a matter of psychology, not of scientific debate. The harder you push, the more resistace you'll get. And the least tenable the position, the more rabidly people will defend it. Sadly.

You probably realize that these people (like, in fact, most people most of the time) don't work through logic forwards, from facts to logical conclusion. They work backwards. They have their conclusion which _has_ to be true, and they're inventing anything, no matter how blatantly hare-brained to everyone else, to feel like they have a support for it.

Probably more relevant than "exactly how did life" start is, sadly, cognitive dissonance. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance ) In building a consistent mental model, and we're hard-wired to need one, what gets discarded isn't as much a case of "what's obviously false" as a case of "what do I _really_ want to keep." If for some reason it's important to someone to believe that grass is red, he/she _will_ discard any evidence to it being green.

There are plenty of reasons to _want_ religion to be undoubtedly true, and I won't list them because I have no doubt that you figured them out already. But I mean, really, really, _really_ want it to be true. What makes you think that something as unimportant (for that person) as scientific truth is going to dislodge _that_?

The purpose there isn't to learn whether evolution is correct. Those guys couldn't give a damn about evolution as such, they just care that it annoyingly contradicts their preconceived conclusion. There's not much way that you'll flip their priority list around so what's for them just means, will be more important than what is the real purpose of that exercise.

 

[Wowbagger]

Well, to be honest, I don't expect that you'll convince (m)any die-hard creationists, no matter what theory or evidence you have.

The aim is NOT to convince them that Evolution is right. Only that their understanding of Evolution is flawed.

You can't argue that (for example) 'emergence' is a substitute for an explanation, when we can demonstrate all the steps that make it an actual explanation.

If Creationists want to fight against Evolution, the first step is to understand Evolution properly, from the point of view of the scientists studying it. They will not be forced to agree with it. But, "Know Thy Enemy" is powerful advice in any battle.

Probably more relevant than "exactly how did life" start is, sadly, cognitive dissonance. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance )

Which is why it's not a good idea to "attack" their most heavily cherished (and therefore, most heavily defended) beliefs. You have to sneak around the side, a little.

they just care that it annoyingly contradicts their preconceived conclusion.

But, it doesn't!!!

That's the joke of their whole position! The science of evolution does NOT rule out the possability of an Intelligent Designer.

It does have a habit of rendering the Designer as a "superfluous entity", and thus no longer needed to explain the origins of life. But, that does not really mean that there couldn't possibly be one there.

Perhaps we can work that, somehow, into the debate. Especially if we are using the strategy of "sneaking around the side".

 

[geni]

It is number of different types of catalysis that is important for the argument.

The more different types of catalysis we find, according to argument, the more likely something "useful" to the formation of life will be catalyzed naturally.

Not remotely. If we find a bunch of catalysts that rip apart carbon structures (free radicaly often qualify) then the odds of life appearing go down.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, yes, but ID itself is just something they're gnashing their teeth to swallow, but they want to use it as a wedge against science. The end goal is basically, "no, God created the world literally in 6 days, 6000 years ago, and life was created on days 4, 5 and 6. With birds coming before animals or dinosaurs." And _that_ kinda conflicts with science at a fundamental level.

The ones who could reconcile science with a nebulous designer who maybe just wrote the rules and took a break to see what happens, are the deists and non-literalist theists. And neither of those needs or supports ID to start with. Catholics actually teach evolution in their schools and universities, for example.

And the literalists deny the data set you can start with. They're the guys who think that fossils were planted by the devil 6000 years ago to test your faith, that radioactive decay was much faster in times past (so any dating is inherently flawed), light travelled much faster in times past (so those starts at 13 billion light years away that we see today were created 6000 years ago too), etc. So I'm guessing that even if you found some sediment with the exact RNA sequence that started replicating, well, who's to say that wasn't planted to test your faith too?

So, well, I wish you luck, but I'm still having my doubts that it'll make any difference. Don't get me wrong, I wish it would. But I'm cynical enough to not think it will. Sadly.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I wonder where all the creationuts got the idea that scientists ever refer to "chance"?
Even the evolution of life is guided by what happens in the environment.
It is far more complex and interesting than dumbing it all down to "chance".
Inevitablility, I like that.

Yes, there are lots of potential reactions that can happen, but the only one that matters is the one with the highest exponential growth factor. I wouldn't be surprised if or when we eventually discover life elsewhere, that it won't be very similar to what we find here at the molecular level, DNA and all.

That doesn't sound at all like anything is left to "chance", especially.
Also, it won't be similar to here because the environment would be different elsewhere, right?
We are carbon based life forms on earth. I think that another base could be used depending on what a planet is like elsewhere?
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/carbon-based_life.html


Life designs itself based on vast amounts of variables and what is available. No designer is needed, and would only through a badly designed wrench into the process if it weren't to be allowed to just happen naturally.

 

[Wowbagger]

Not remotely. If we find a bunch of catalysts that rip apart carbon structures (free radicaly often qualify) then the odds of life appearing go down.

Not necessarily.

The carbon-building catalysts only have to outnumber the carbon-ripping catalysts in at least one spot, on Earth, in order for life to take hold.

I will bet most creationists don't even know that the carbon components of life can be catalyzed by natural forces, in the first place. They assume either an Intelligence is required, or astronomically-ludicrous chance.

Well, yes, but ID itself is just something they're gnashing their teeth to swallow, but they want to use it as a wedge against science.

They would still need to know their enemy, in order to wage war against science. As we start to show that their understanding is flawed, it forces them to re-group.

I wonder where all the creationuts got the idea that scientists ever refer to "chance"?

I think they probably think scientists do not refer to chance, themselves. From their point of view: Scientists are only speculating on processes, and are too dumb to realize that the chances of them happening are astronomically ludicrous.

ETA: Or, they hear that Evolution has "random" elements, and they confuse that with random chance.

 

[Wowbagger]

So, some of you think the argument might not be effective. But, other than that, is there anything wrong, in principal, with the arguments?

geni was the only person, so far, to identify a potential problem (which was easily rectified, in that case - see above post), can anyone spot any others?

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, I see a problem with the audience you have in mind, but feel free to try.

 

[dahduh]

Let the fittest arguments grow and prosper!

 

[geni]

Not necessarily.

The carbon-building catalysts only have to outnumber the carbon-ripping catalysts in at least one spot, on Earth, in order for life to take hold.

But the more carbon ripping catlyists there are the less likelyhood of such a spot existing.

Worse still carbon building isn't enough. Because your next problem is that most carbon structures are pretty useless to you. Particularly early life is unlikely to find anything other than stuff to create RNA, phospholipids and perhaps amino acids and DNA fairly useless (yes I hold the all RNA early life position so sue me). So a bunch of catalysts that can create bicyclooctane are going not going to help. Worse still they are likely to lock up any carbon that can be used to form early life into forms where it can't be used.

On top of that you have the problem that some of the catlytic processes may even rip apart your early self replicating systems.

In practice your position is little different from "complexity=life". One of the very firm lessons of our reasearch into posible mechanisms of abiogenisis is that this is not the case.

 

[Wowbagger]

But the more carbon ripping catlyists there are the less likelyhood of such a spot existing.

Not necessarily. There will naturally be clusters where one will outnumber the other. We might even be able to predict how these clusters would form, using network theories.

Worse still carbon building isn't enough. Because your next problem is that most carbon structures are pretty useless to you.

The power of natural selection will eventually take over, and what ever is "useful to you" will be determined that way.

It so happens that RNA and DNA, etc. became the units of selection, and the recipes of our lives. But, it could have been a very different thing, if the physics of the catalysts worked differently.

On top of that you have the problem that some of the catlytic processes may even rip apart your early self replicating systems.

Well, we do have those! But, again, the power of selection processes and natural clustering will take care of that.

In practice your position is little different from "complexity=life".

I disagree, because my position, here, has the power to be much more specific than that.

This position can bring out the details, whereas as "black box" statement, such as "complexity" would not.

One of the very firm lessons of our reasearch into posible mechanisms of abiogenisis is that this is not the case.

My "formula", here, is like a highly-compressed (perhaps too well compressed) version of those lessons.

 

[geni]

Not necessarily. There will naturally be clusters where one will outnumber the other. We might even be able to predict how these clusters would form, using network theories.

Outnumbering doesn't really help you with catalysts.

The power of natural selection will eventually take over, and what ever is "useful to you" will be determined that way.

It so happens that RNA and DNA, etc. became the units of selection, and the recipes of our lives. But, it could have been a very different thing, if the physics of the catalysts worked differently.

No. The vast majority of carbon structures are too stable, too unstable or too unvarable to be useful to early life. "could have been a very different" is just meaningless handwaveing unless you can provide some evidence to belive that it is true. There are fairly large number of requirements any useful carbon compound has to meet (not decomposeing rapaidly on contact with water for example).

Well, we do have those! But, again, the power of selection processes and natural clustering will take care of that.

Not really. Try putting together life that can survive a really high UV enviroment.

I disagree, because my position, here, has the power to be much more specific than that.

This position can bring out the details, whereas as "black box" statement, such as "complexity" would not.

No your position is an exact equivelent.

"It seems to me that the more types of catalytic (and self-catalytic) processes you can identify among organic molecules, the greater the chances of life (or something like it), will emerge and thrive! (Especially since carbon seems to be one of the most versatile elements on the Periodic Table.)"

"more types of catalytic processes" will simply at best give you more organic compounds. Which just means a slightly more complex system. Problem is that doesn't help you any. Systems are naturaly complex. The trick life worked out was very limited and controlled complexity.

Since the subject is catalysts check out enzymes. They are far more specific and controlled than the catalysts you find in more general chemistry. The reason being that life needs them to stick to doing their thing without produceing a bunch of random rubish.

Now early life doesn't have that degree of optimisation so more catalytic process are bad since it just means more rubish for it's proto enzymes to spew out some of which may be leathal.

My "formula", here, is like a highly-compressed (perhaps too well compressed) version of those lessons.

Evidences?

 

[conadera]

carbon compounds exceed all others

Hi Wowie,
Just wanted to add a thought or two to this interesting discussion.
At the last TAM, Neil DeGrasse Tyson said carbon forms more compounds than all other elements combined. I'll take his word for that.
And don't forget that it may have taken billions of years for the first self-replicating molecule to form; but once it did, it could spread copies of itself all over the planet.
This is intuitively obvious to anyone who has observed the spread of anything self-replicating like crabgrass, cockroaches, or Mormons.

 

[Wowbagger]

Outnumbering doesn't really help you with catalysts.

Well, it is slightly more complicated than outnumbering. There is also out-powering.

If we assume all catalysts are equally powerful (which is not realistic, but it helps simplify the argument), then I would say: Yes, outnumbering would really help: More carbon structures can be built, faster than they are going to be broken down. Especially if those carbon structure are then rebuilt (with other processes) that make them unable to be broken down by the original forces.

If we assume NOT all catalyst are equally powerful, it becomes an issue of total amount of power in the pool for "one side" versus "the other". And, the argument essentially becomes the same.

In a pool of finite resources, those catalysts more successful at using up the pool, will have more of an effect on that pool.

I am sure there is a computer simulation, somewhere, that can demonstrate this. But, I will have to look it up.

No. The vast majority of carbon structures are too stable, too unstable or too unvarable to be useful to early life.

I agree. But, since some will be stronger than the others, an early stage of natural selection will favor those.

"could have been a very different" is just meaningless handwaveing unless you can provide some evidence to belive that it is true.

Admittedly, it would be difficult demonstrating this, because we would need to simulate a completely different set of physics laws, to do it. But, there is no reason to assume some form of complex adaptive system, that behaves very much like life-as-we-know-it, would never come up in any alternative.

It is not just complexity that makes the argument, it is also the specific mathematical trends behind self-organizing networks: with clusters and nodes routinely falling into place, etc. (ETA: which would form an alternative set of catalysts.)

However, that subject is going off on a bit of a tangent. For the sake of staying on topic, I suggest we move off of alternative physics. I would rather focus on abiogenesis, as we know it, and we can duke it out over networks, in another thread.

There are fairly large number of requirements any useful carbon compound has to meet

We have catalysts for them.

Or, sometimes it might be other natural chemical process that might not necessarily be counted as "catalyst". But, other than issues of nomenclature, the point would still remain.

(not decomposeing rapaidly on contact with water for example).

We have lipid-bi-layer-forming processes for that.

Not really. Try putting together life that can survive a really high UV enviroment.

That sounds suspiciously like an argument from ignorance. Are you implying that it is impossible for life to take hold, naturally, simply because you cannot figure out how the early stages of life could withstand UV radiation? Or am I misinterpreting your meaning?

Since the subject is catalysts check out enzymes. They are far more specific and controlled than the catalysts you find in more general chemistry. The reason being that life needs them to stick to doing their thing without produceing a bunch of random rubish.

You might not have realized it, but that is, essentially, a restatement of my point. Enzymes would be one type of catalyst molecule. I even mention that in the opening post.

So, I hope you will understand why this statement would not be true:

"more types of catalytic processes" will simply at best give you more organic compounds. Which just means a slightly more complex system. Problem is that doesn't help you any. Systems are naturaly complex. The trick life worked out was very limited and controlled complexity.

But, to be more specific on that: The limitations and control could be established through natural selection processes. The "more types of catalytic processes" line simply gives you a lot of options to work with.

You might have a box filled with LEGO pieces of all sorts of shapes, sizes and colors. If you want to build a model car with them, you might not need to utilize all of those different variations of pieces, only a subset of them. But, at least the options are there, for you to choose amongst.
(We are assuming this was a model of your own devising from a tub of misc. LEGO pieces; and not a pre-packaged box with specific instructions, which rarely include extra pieces.)

But, here is the thing: The more options you have, the more likely you will be able to build the car to your specs. If you had fewer options, say only rectangle pieces and no wheels, your car will look less like how you would prefer it.

In the real world, natural selection would do the choosing, instead of an intelligent entity. But, at least "it" has a wide variety of things to select from. The more options there are, the more likely some string of successful life forms will be made out of them.

Evidences?

I have read a lot of books on the subject. And, that seems to be the general message I get from them. "Screw random chance! We are more interested in seeing what natural catalytic processes might be discovered, to explain the natural emergence of life!"
It is a LOT MORE than merely saying "complexity is life".

 

[Wowbagger]

Welcome to the Forum, conadera!

At the last TAM, Neil DeGrasse Tyson said carbon forms more compounds than all other elements combined.

That seems to be the case! And, I knew of that long before TAM6.

It might also be worth mentioning that the other elements that make up life are the most common found in the Universe.

And don't forget that it may have taken billions of years for the first self-replicating molecule to form; but once it did, it could spread copies of itself all over the planet.

Righty-ho!

This is intuitively obvious to anyone who has observed the spread of anything self-replicating like crabgrass, cockroaches, or Mormons.

But, not necessarily to the crabgrass, cockroaches, and Mormons, themselves.