Creating life from matter

[John Hewitt]

Yeah.....When you actually talk to a scientist, come back and let us know what you think. Science is built on original thought--we don't just assume that the literature is correct.

Also, your website doesn't deal with Hadean ocean chemistry. Therefore we can more or less dismiss it out of hand.
..
Look at John Hewett's website to see why this is wrong. I'm sure he's a very good chemist, but his focus on chemistry blinds him to geology (particularly Hadean geochemistry). Thus he's lacking key concepts in the whole abiogenesis debate. Similarly, a person who's an expert in biology likely (and my experience bears this out) has no clue what they're talking about in terms of paleontology. Similarly a person who's an expert in paleontology, or evolution in general, doesn't have the knowledge to speak intelligently on the subject of abiogenesis. The problem is, the two fields ARE different. Evolution deals with biochemistry, and metabolic pathways, and morphospace, while abiogenesis deals with biogeochemistry, and redox bariers, and fractionation due to different crystal faces. Sure, you can debate the arguments and not hte person--but the person's knowledge dictates what evidence they have to work with, and therefore how good their arguments are. No one has an infinite amount of time to study, and therefore we must specialize.

I wish Dinwar, or some other "expert" in abiogenesis, would identify the "key concepts" that John Hewett (whoever he might be) is lacking.

 

[John Hewitt]

We certainly agree on that, but original thought can often be off the mark, which is why professional review retains its very important role. As a layman in this field, I find professional criticism essential to my understanding and education.

I see no reason why a scientific layman would either seek or read professional criticism and I do not imagine that you have.
For my part, I would remind you that we have previously discussed the respective merits of peer review and open review.
Any professional who wants to read and comment upon my work is more than welcome to do so and I would certainly take their comments into account during the further development of my arguments. I would take signed comments more seriously the anonymous variety.
On the other hand, I will not simply close my work down simply because some anonymous "expert" pronounces that he or she disagrees.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I see no reason why a scientific layman would either seek or read professional criticism and I do not imagine that you have.

That is quite an astonishing comment. How else would a layman make a judgement about any theoretical or emerging area of science?
To choose a totally distinct (and neutral) area of science, let's take cosmology. There are a number of modern cosmological systems and theories proposed by researchers in that area. When a new concept like Paul Steinhardt's and Neil Turok's cyclic model was proposed, the thoughts of others working in that field provided a good deal of insight about the viability of their theories. I have and will continue to consider the criticism of other professionals when evaluating the viability of any new science.

For my part, I would remind you that we have previously discussed the respective merits of peer review and open review.
Any professional who wants to read and comment upon my work is more than welcome to do so and I would certainly take their comments into account during the further development of my arguments. I would take signed comments more seriously the anonymous variety.
On the other hand, I will not simply close my work down simply because some anonymous "expert" pronounces that he or she disagrees.

Anonymous opinions may be interesting in a forum like this one, but I believe you are justified in waiting for professional judgement. Have you submitted your work to professional journals and, if so, what sort of responses have you had?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This might be an important point to remind everyone, once in a while.

Either life began through natural chemical processes or God did it. What third option am I missing here?

Conception is a different process from fetal development. I think that's the best analogy I can find here. Conception may indeed be an event in itself, but it still marks the beginning of the life of the fetus. Would anyone say fetal development didn't include conception?

 

[John Hewitt]

That is quite an astonishing comment. How else would a layman make a judgement about any theoretical or emerging area of science?
To choose a totally distinct (and neutral) area of science, let's take cosmology. There are a number of modern cosmological systems and theories proposed by researchers in that area. When a new concept like Paul Steinhardt's and Neil Turok's cyclic model was proposed, the thoughts of others working in that field provided a good deal of insight about the viability of their theories. I have and will continue to consider the criticism of other professionals when evaluating the viability of any new science.

Anonymous opinions may be interesting in a forum like this one, but I believe you are justified in waiting for professional judgement. Have you submitted your work to professional journals and, if so, what sort of responses have you had?

I have already stated my position on peer review.
You are free to read my work or any commentary on it that you like. You are also free to not read it.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Mr. Hewitt:
I just re-reviewed your
"Evolutionary Origin of Metabolism
Chapter 4
The Selection and Evolution of Oscillations"

It does indeed force me to reconsider the dogma that abiogenesis must be a distinct process from evolution through natural selection. Most theories of abiogenesis are certainly distinct from evolution in that there is no selection mechanism necessary to form the first replicating molecules. I see that selection is a necessary feature of your approach and stand corrected. It is also quite satisfying to this naive layman that the sun's day-night oscillations could create an environment that would favor certain chemical reactions.
For any interested lurkers, I will quote the following from your website:

4.1.3 Selection will favour some Specific Oscillations in Optimal Environments
By definition, only a minority of chemicals will be optimally protected and, purely as a matter of chance, high multiplicity oscillations will not normally be optimally protected; that is to say, if an oscillation contains many compounds, one or more of those compounds is likely to be unprotected and so expose the entire oscillation. If an oscillation is highly specific then, purely as a matter of statistics, there is a better chance that its component chemicals will be well highly protected. (Of course, there is also a higher probability that both the compounds of a specific oscillation will be unprotected but those oscillations will be deselected and do not alter the central argument.)

Selection will thus favour those, specific oscillations whose chemical components reside in optimally protected environments. The result is that, over time, a selective process should occur that causes these chemical mixtures to predominantly involve those organic compounds that are subject to specific interconversions and oscillations. In other words, evolutionary processes acting on a random mixture of organic chemicals will select specific, protected, chemical oscillations at the expense of those that are non-specific and unprotected. (This aspect of the theory suggests an origin for biochemical specificity.)

As I have already said, I am only a layman, and do not have the technical skills to choose one theory over another, but I do find this approach quite interesting. If this has already been covered elsewhere, sorry for the redundancy.

Afterthought: Nevertheless, I would very much like to see a professional review your ideas.

 

[Dinwar]

John Hewett, you should read what I wrote. My entire argument centers around the fact that while I know enough about evolution to discuss it intelligently, I do NOT know enough about abiogenesis. Therefore to imply that I call myself an expert is a serious error. However, I will say this: Any attempt to explain abiogenesis that does not include a disucssion of Hadean geochemistry, and in particular Hadean oceanic chemistry (or whatever water body you want to propose for where life started) is lacking serious components of the theory. Life, simply put, did not arise on an Earth-like planet. Earth during the Hadean was alien--the atmosphere was different, the length of the day was different, the tides were more extreme, it wasn't uncommon for a huge asteroid to smack into us, etc. A critical difference for chemistry is the redox state of the atmosphere: until about 2.5 Ga the atmosphere was disarobic to anarobic. This has serious implications for any theories on abiogenesis. Because you do not take those into account, your theory is necessarily incomplete, and likely wrong.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Hmmmm this thread is getting more interesting than I expected ...

 

[Perpetual Student]

John Hewett, you should read what I wrote. My entire argument centers around the fact that while I know enough about evolution to discuss it intelligently, I do NOT know enough about abiogenesis. Therefore to imply that I call myself an expert is a serious error. However, I will say this: Any attempt to explain abiogenesis that does not include a disucssion of Hadean geochemistry, and in particular Hadean oceanic chemistry (or whatever water body you want to propose for where life started) is lacking serious components of the theory. Life, simply put, did not arise on an Earth-like planet. Earth during the Hadean was alien--the atmosphere was different, the length of the day was different, the tides were more extreme, it wasn't uncommon for a huge asteroid to smack into us, etc. A critical difference for chemistry is the redox state of the atmosphere: until about 2.5 Ga the atmosphere was disarobic to anarobic. This has serious implications for any theories on abiogenesis. Because you do not take those into account, your theory is necessarily incomplete, and likely wrong.

I'm not aware that Hewitt's explanations assume anything other than a Hadean geochemistry. From his website:

1.The first set of premises amounts to the assertion that our current understanding of the chemical and physical conditions that prevailed on the early earth is correct and was the environment that prevailed during the period of life's first emergence. The prebiotic earth is therefore taken to have been quite warm, volcanically active, very moist, stormy and exposed to solar UV radiation due to the absence of an ozone layer. It is taken that this prebiotic environment included a complex mixture of organic chemicals, commonly known as the primordial soup. All these assumptions are fairly standard.

Is there something specific that he is missing?

 

[Dinwar]

Is there something specific that he is missing?

Let's start with details.

prebiotic earth is therefore taken to have been quite warm,

HOW warm? A difference of a half-dozen degrees is the difference between certain protiens functioning and others collapsing into inert squiggles of matter.

volcanically active,

Meaning WHAT, precisely?

very moist,

What is the % of water vapor in the atmosphere? This can have serious implications for biochemistry.

stormy

HOW stormy? How strong were those storms? Lightning may have played a roll in abiogenesis (either adding energy or removing it), and vague hand-waving around doesn't help anyone.

and exposed to solar UV radiation due to the absence of an ozone layer.

Meaning what, exactly?

It is taken that this prebiotic environment included a complex mixture of organic chemicals, commonly known as the primordial soup.

WHAT mix of chemicals? How difuse was it? Was it homogenous or heterogenous? WHERE was it--in the oceans, at the beaches, at oceanic vents, at ponds on land, in rivers?

All these assumptions are fairly standard.

While this is true, it's similar to saying "The Earth is warm" is a fairly standard assumption. It is--until you get into details.

Also note that nothing is discussed about redox state, something that biogeochemists typically get very long-winded about. This is a major error--certain chemical reactions, which (far as I've read) are important for the rise of life, won't take place in conditions with oxygen levels that are too high. Was there NO atmospheric free oxygen, or just very little? That's a major question. Back to the volcanism thing, volcanism is not some minor issue you can wave away as a standard assumption--biogeochemists dealing with the Cambrian Explosion get into very serious and complex verbal battles over just how much of a roll volcanism plays in providing nutrients for life (some argue that techtonic activity put enough ions into the oceans to allow for shell formation, while others argue that that idea is insane, to give you the 1:500,000 view of that particular argument). And what KIND of volcanism was it? Was it oceanic rifting, which produces hydrothermal vents in the ocean? Was it cauldara-type volcanism, which destroyes pretty much everything around it?

The issue is that in order to understand the chemistry, you need to understand the environment that chemistry is happening in. Some biochemical reactions won't take place if things are too acidic (was there a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, which would mean a lot of carbonic acid in the oceans? Or was that CO2 taken up by chemical weathering of mountain ranges?) or too basic (how much CaCO3 was deposited? how much chemical weathering was going on?). Some reactions, as I stated earlier, need a lot of oxygen, or little, or none at all. Some need more saline aquious environments, some need less.

A good analogy is a novel: JW is attempting to argue about the characters, without acknowledging the plot, the setting, or the theme. And it's not just him that's doing it--he's just an easy target because he's here. Geologists tend to try to talk about the setting without discussing the characters, plot, or theme. Biologists try to talk about the plot without the setting, theme or characters. Paleontologists try to talk about the theme without the setting, plot, or characters. And I think I've stretched this analogy as far as it will go.

 

[Wowbagger]

A good analogy is a novel: JW is attempting to argue about the characters, without acknowledging the plot, the setting, or the theme. And it's not just him that's doing it--he's just an easy target because he's here. Geologists tend to try to talk about the setting without discussing the characters, plot, or theme. Biologists try to talk about the plot without the setting, theme or characters. Paleontologists try to talk about the theme without the setting, plot, or characters. And I think I've stretched this analogy as far as it will go.

That's not as far as it will go! Here are some examples you are missing:

• Creationists talk about the author, but not the plot, setting, characters, nor theme.
• Systematists will only talk about the index and the table of contents
• Not to be confused with semanticists, who will talk about the letters, words, and phrases used in the novel. Not so much the actual content.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Can we not hypothesize that conditions on the earth varied a great deal around the globe and from season to season, epoch to epoch, etc. concerning temperature, volcanism, water vapor, storms, etc. so that the necessary conditions were likely to occur often enough for life to begin?
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I am not aware of more definitive foundations concerning these variables as a prerequisite to the speculations of other theorists in this field.
Do other theories of abiogenesis include more specific information about redox state?
I ask all the above questions without an agenda; they are simply naive questions designed to clarify the issue here and better my understanding.

 

[Dinwar]

That's not as far as it will go! Here are some examples you are missing:

I stand corrected.

Can we not hypothesize that conditions on the earth varied a great deal around the globe and from season to season, epoch to epoch, etc. concerning temperature, volcanism, water vapor, storms, etc. so that the necessary conditions were likely to occur often enough for life to begin?

Sure. However, the results will be just as accurate as if you ask "What will this protien do to this chemical?" Under some conditions it'll do X, under others it'll do Y, and under others it'll do nothing at all because the protien will literally disolve. The question, as posed, is unanswerable. Similarly, when discussing abiogenesis until you establish the conditions in which the event occurred the question "What was the process by which life arose?" is unanswerable. And for precisely the same reason--different environments (redox state, pH, temperature, etc) will yield profoundly different results.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I am not aware of more definitive foundations concerning these variables as a prerequisite to the speculations of other theorists in this field.

Biogeochemists write extensively on this subject, for the reasons I listed above. You CANNOT discuss abiogenesis without establishing the conditions of whichever patch of Hadean real estate you think abiogenesis occurred in, for the same reason you can't discuss the nature of protiens without discussing the environment of the protiens.

Do other theories of abiogenesis include more specific information about redox state?

Yes. Biogeochemists, a subdicipline of which is devoted to abiogenesis, include a great deal of specific information about things like redox state, pH, ion concentrations, tectonic activity, and really all those factors JW simply glosses over. And I mean a LOT of specific information--these are some of the most information-dense papers I've ever read. No one, not even biogeochemists, can read them in a single sitting.

I ask all the above questions without an agenda; they are simply naive questions designed to clarify the issue here and better my understanding.

And I've tried to take them as such (sorry if it doesn't sound that way). It also illustrates my main point: people who are experts in one field are not necessarily experts in another. I don't doubt JW knows a fair bit about organic chemistry--but he obviously knows little if anything about Hadean geology. Similarly, a geologist specializing in Hadean oceanic deposits probably doesn't have a great background in organic chemistry (they probably know that metabolic processes enrich the organism, and therefore the rock, in heavier isotopes of carbon and oxygen, but that's probably about it). People specializing in how the life arose don't necessarily know the actual conditions of the Earth when life arose, and those who do know the Earth's conditions don't necessarily know much about the various processes thrown about as explanations of how life arose.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I'm looking forward to Mr. Hewitt's response.

 

[Reality Check]

The point is that a great many people, including those on this forum, assert that abiogenesis and evolution are completely separate. For them, at least, there does seem to be enough data to answer that question.
(Actually, I think there is as well, its just that I arrive at the opposite conclusion.)

The point is that the definitions of abiogenesis and evolution make them completely separate because evolution depends on biological entities to be created before it can start.
The grey area is whether you draw the line. You seem to want to draw the line so that chemical reactions become evolution, i.e. abiogenesis essentially does not exist.

 

[Reality Check]

There is every reason to cry foul when the assertion is made that abiogenesis and evolution are unrelated to one another.

There is every reason to cry foul when no one here is making this claim. By definition abiogenesis is the precursor to evolution and thus evolution is related to abiogenesis (no abiogenesis, no life to evolve !).

 

[John Hewitt]

Sure. However, the results will be just as accurate as if you ask "What will this protien do to this chemical?" Under some conditions it'll do X, under others it'll do Y, and under others it'll do nothing at all because the protien will literally disolve. The question, as posed, is unanswerable. Similarly, when discussing abiogenesis until you establish the conditions in which the event occurred the question "What was the process by which life arose?" is unanswerable. And for precisely the same reason--different environments (redox state, pH, temperature, etc) will yield profoundly different results.

Biogeochemists write extensively on this subject, for the reasons I listed above. You CANNOT discuss abiogenesis without establishing the conditions of whichever patch of Hadean real estate you think abiogenesis occurred in, for the same reason you can't discuss the nature of protiens without discussing the environment of the protiens.

Yes. Biogeochemists, a subdicipline of which is devoted to abiogenesis, include a great deal of specific information about things like redox state, pH, ion concentrations, tectonic activity, and really all those factors JW simply glosses over. And I mean a LOT of specific information--these are some of the most information-dense papers I've ever read. No one, not even biogeochemists, can read them in a single sitting.

And I've tried to take them as such (sorry if it doesn't sound that way). It also illustrates my main point: people who are experts in one field are not necessarily experts in another. I don't doubt JW knows a fair bit about organic chemistry--but he obviously knows little if anything about Hadean geology. Similarly, a geologist specializing in Hadean oceanic deposits probably doesn't have a great background in organic chemistry (they probably know that metabolic processes enrich the organism, and therefore the rock, in heavier isotopes of carbon and oxygen, but that's probably about it). People specializing in how the life arose don't necessarily know the actual conditions of the Earth when life arose, and those who do know the Earth's conditions don't necessarily know much about the various processes thrown about as explanations of how life arose.

I disagree with most of what you have written. It is not true that the conditions on the early earth were known with anything like the precision that you seem to believe possible. Moreover theoreticians of abiogenesis do not specify the conditions of the primordial earth with the precision that you assert or expect from me. Indeed, in many cases they blithely ignore published estimates of those conditions.

However, I find that lack of precision irrelevant. The earth is a large place and as "Perpetual Student" indicates, it is certain to have contained a great variety of environments and environmental conditions. In my opinion, one needs only to consider a proposed mechanism of abiogenesis in the context whether any earthly environment might have existed which would have enabled that particular mechanism.

My proposed mechanism could, in principle, work in many environments but I think it would be best within some shallow lake with poor or nonexistent drainage - the kind of place we might nowadays call an "alkali lake." Such a lake would have been subject to quite wide temperature oscillations and would have accumulated significant solute concentrations. The protected environment would have been solutes dissolved in the lake, while the degree of protection would really have been determined by distance from the surface.

Where I do have problems conventional views about the chemistry of the early earth is in the concentration of ammonia estimated for the atmosphere and oceans. This concern does not apply to the very early earth but to the stages in my mechanism during which oscillations are selecting out early anaerobic glycolysis, by which time, by conventional views there would be little or no ammonia in the atmosphere. As I discussed in the relevant chapter, there is evidence that the last reaction of modern anaerobic glycolysis is not the reaction that originally occurred at that point in the pathway. In order to resolve this problem, and to explain the prevalence of amino acids in living systems, I have proposed that the first, primordial product of anaerobic glycolysis was alanine or some other amino acids. (The precise amino acid would have depended upon which carbohydrate was the starting material. Alanine would have been the product if a hexose sugar was the starting point.)

That postulate seems to require that ammonia remained present in the atmosphere and oceans for much longer than is commonly estimated. (Kasting, for example has estimated that atmospheric ammonia would have been photolized into nitrogen on a 10 or 20 million year timescale.) My mechanism seems to require that ammonia would have been present for several hundred million years after the earth's formation. In order to get around that problem, I have proposed that early vulcanism released significant but decreasing amounts of ammonia into the atmosphere after the earth's formation and that the rate of decline would have depended upon the time period of the rock cycle that was applicable at the time.

Finally, I note your comments about proteins, but I would remind you that we are talking about a time when proteins would not have existed. I therefore see little reason to discuss their properties. My work does discuss the reasons for the formation of proteins, and other macromolecules, as homeostatic energy reservoirs, but that comes later.

 

[MuDPhuD]

Either life began through natural chemical processes or God did it. What third option am I missing here?

Conception is a different process from fetal development. I think that's the best analogy I can find here. Conception may indeed be an event in itself, but it still marks the beginning of the life of the fetus. Would anyone say fetal development didn't include conception?

Evolution is a Theory developed from a hypothesis by multiple independent lines of confirmatory information. The hallmark of a good hypothesis or theory is the predictions which arise from accepting them as true. In this case the Theory of Evolution predicts that life arose by auto-organization of non-living molecules into a self replicating information system. This prediction naturally leads to a great deal of interest on humanities' part in how this spectacular occurrence took place.
Even when we eventually engineer such an event in a laboratory we won't know that the way we engineered it is the way it actually happened billions of years ago.

Our inability to confirm the exact sequence of events that resulted in the origin of life in no way impacts the validity of Evolutionary Theory, but does mean that the study of abiogenesis is fundamentally different from the study of Evolution.
The science of abiogenesis is attempting to construct, by hypothesis and experiment, a plausible series of chemical events which COULD HAVE resulted in the origin of life. The science of Evolution on the other hand, uses hypothesis and experiment to study the ongoing variation and adaptation of existing organisms, and applies what we know to be happening now to the interpretation paleontologic evidence.

Incidentally, anyone with a personal pet hypothesis explaining abiogenesis (or anything else for that matter) should apply for funding and work to produce experimental evidence in support of said hypothesis. Posting web pages and cruising discussion forums is just wasting valuable time which could be spent in the lab.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Evolution is a Theory developed from a hypothesis by multiple independent lines of confirmatory information. The hallmark of a good hypothesis or theory is the predictions which arise from accepting them as true. In this case the Theory of Evolution predicts that life arose by auto-organization of non-living molecules into a self replicating information system. This prediction naturally leads to a great deal of interest on humanities' part in how this spectacular occurrence took place.
Even when we eventually engineer such an event in a laboratory we won't know that the way we engineered it is the way it actually happened billions of years ago.

Our inability to confirm the exact sequence of events that resulted in the origin of life in no way impacts the validity of Evolutionary Theory, but does mean that the study of abiogenesis is fundamentally different from the study of Evolution.
The science of abiogenesis is attempting to construct, by hypothesis and experiment, a plausible series of chemical events which COULD HAVE resulted in the origin of life. The science of Evolution on the other hand, uses hypothesis and experiment to study the ongoing variation and adaptation of existing organisms, and applies what we know to be happening now to the interpretation paleontologic evidence.

Incidentally, anyone with a personal pet hypothesis explaining abiogenesis (or anything else for that matter) should apply for funding and work to produce experimental evidence in support of said hypothesis. Posting web pages and cruising discussion forums is just wasting valuable time which could be spent in the lab.

First, this idea that we can't know or we can know is not a legitimate distinction as you are proposing it to be. Since when is it necessary to prove a theory with some kind of absolute certainty? I may never know the exact lineage of two organisms with commingled genetic material. So what? I may never know the exact molecular sequence of the first replicating molecules. How does that differ? These are both simply steps in evolution theory.

From my viewpoint, it's fine to divide up evolution theory between the first replicating molecules and non-replicating molecule precursors. That does not seem to be where you are dividing up the processes. Technically, the replicating molecule precursors were subject to evolution theory processes, but I have no issue dividing the ingredients from the product.

I'll ask again the answer you avoided giving, at what point are you dividing up evolution theory and abiogenesis theory? If you divide it at the first replicating molecule(s), then we are on the same page just using different descriptions.

 

[Wowbagger]

Either life began through natural chemical processes or God did it. What third option am I missing here?

Forgive me, but I don't see how that is a response to my point.

Dinwar stated that evidence for abiogenesis is not evidence for evolution, and vice-versa, and disproving one (hypothetically) would not disprove the other, etc.

And, I was saying fine, we can remind people about that, on occasion. It is, strictly speaking, true. While adding that they both contribute to the larger picture of natural processes explaining all of life.


How is your question a response to this?

(If you are looking for third options, I might be able to think of a few, anyway. Not that they would be of scientific merit.)