Evolution vs. Ooops Creationism

[Gaspode]

OK, I’m just moving this here to stop the hijacking of an otherwise reasonable thread.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=52896
Podkayne said:

quote:

Originally posted by Gaspode
Amino acids cannot be made and maintained under any conditions aproximating any theoretical composition of primitive Earth,

Huh? You can build and “maintain” (if I understand how you’re using that word) amino acids on a bare rock in outer space. There are amino acids on the surface of Mars. Could you please expand on your point here?
quote:

amino acids can’t realistically form proteins in acid salt water,

And acid salt water is the only thing you would find ANYWHERE on the Earth? No other conditions are possible?
quote:

you need DNA to code for the necessary complexity to get self replicating proteins, and proteins to produce self-repicating DNA.

Whadabout RNA? I’d always heard of that as the frist self-replicating molecule, and it can replicate itself without proteins.
quote:

The probabilities are too big,

Too big according to whom? That’s just an argument from incredulity dressed up in a Sunday hat. The timescales involved are mind-boggling, and the Earth is a really big place.
quote:

and contrary to the ‘climbing mount improbable’ school of thought you can’t do it in little steps: if one fails you have to start again from scratch.

Ah, but theoretically you only have to succeed once.

[Podkayne]

Quoting from the other thread:

*Originally posted by Gaspode *
I can’t fully support a theory that suggests random chance can come up with something that cannot be achieved with conscious, directed intelligent thought and manipulation.

Here is an excellent article about extensive experimental confirmation that random chance paired with natural selection can produce results superior to the attempts of an intelligent designer: http://www.infidels.org/~meta/getalife/

My support is still for ‘Ooops creationism’ (I really love that name!) simply because it’s the only theory that fits the all the known facts.

While postulating the existence of a being for which we have absolutely no evidence!!! You can make up a supernatural boogeyman to explain anything you don’t understand, but you haven’t solved the problem. Gods of the gaps have a very short life expectancy, and they have no place in scientific discourse.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Jeff_42 wrote:
Actually scientists sort of have done this. While not creating life as such they have reproduced the precursors necessary to life in a laboratory.

Basically, some guy (I don’t remember who but I’m looking for a cite) sealed up a big glass jar filled with what scientists believe was the primordial goo on early earth. He then zapped it with electricity to emulate lightning and basically let it sit and stew awhile. When the jar was opened and the contents examined they found amino-acids (basic building blocks of life) had been created.

So, while a tadpole didn’t spontaneously form in the jar scientists do have some evidence for the ability of a desolate planet to create its own life under certain circumstances.

The above is from: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=49448

Other posters to that thread confirmed the existence of the experiment and added more detail.

It does indeed seem possible that precursors to life could exist on early earth.

[edwino]

About RNA :

RNA is a fairly simple molecule. It consists of a phosphate, a 5 carbon sugar, and a nitrogenous base. It could have conceivably formed in a primitive soup. RNA can catalyze various reactions by forming ribonucleic enzymes, or ribozymes.

RNA can cut itself in the form of self-splicing introns. Tom Cech won a Nobel for discovering this. RNA can polymerize more RNA, in the form of Tetrahymena ribozymes. Many more “advanced” cellular processes, like protein synthesis and DNA synthesis, depend on ribozymes. Protein synthesis may not, in some circumstances, need anything except the ribonuclear rRNA components of the ribosome (ick lots of Rs) to proceed. This gives us a clue that many of these could have started as RNA-driven processes.

It is quite conceivable that the first self-replicating molecule was an RNA molecule, which later (perhaps much later) co-opted DNA as a more stable “storage” form and proteins as a more versatile enzymatic system.

[Gaspode]

OK Podkayne and anyone else participating. A few clarifiers first. Don’t be surprised if I get bored with this very fast. I didn’t intend to get into a debate on this subject. I don’t entirely dispute the working of natural selection (check this out if you want to see me defending/explaining it).

Huh? You can build and “maintain” (if I understand how you’re using that word) amino acids on a bare rock in outer space. There are amino acids on the surface of Mars. Could you please expand on your point here?

No, you can’t. Proteins are a polymer, they require a liquid substrate/solvent to form or a very special solid substrate that is capable of moving amino acids from place to place. Rock won’t do. They are a form of dehydration polymer and have a hard time forming in water without a catalyst. A rock in outer space in the same orbit as the Earth will be bombarded with so much radiation that any protein will be denatured fairly rapidly and so cannot be maintained. Amino acids may well be present on Mars, but to say that that proves protein construction/maintanence is like saying that the presence of ethylene proves the existence of polyethylene, only far less likely.

And acid salt water is the only thing you would find ANYWHERE on the Earth? No other conditions are possible?

Nope, either completely misunderstood, or taken out of context. All theories on the development of the first proteins say it took place on the surface of the Earths oceans. Hence acid salt water.

Whadabout RNA? I’d always heard of that as the frist self-replicating molecule, and it can replicate itself without proteins.

OK, a throw-away line in GQ. RNA/DNA would have been more accurate, but the statement holds. Unless there have been some radical changes since I did biochem RNA can’t self replicate without proteins. Even if this were true then you’re saying that RNA capable of self-replication coud form. How the hell do we get ribose sugar in a primitive ocean? And when we do RNA is even less stable and less likely to polymerise in water than protein.

Too big according to whom?

Well me for one. Many others have done the same calculations and arrived at the same conclusion. This was a statement about my personal beliefs. Even if it weren’t anyone who wants to is welcome to redo-the calculations for the odds of:

1. all the amino acids necessary to form even the simplest functional enzyme possibly beneficial to self replication developing by random chance
2. not being destroyed by solar radiation,
3. Not bumping into any other aa’s or other compounds that might bind with them or destroy them
4. Being all in the same patch of ocean at the same time
5. linking all in the right order
6. then bumping into a micelle capable of holding the protein
7. The micelle being permeable to that protein
8. And the lipids necessary to form the micelle being present in the first place

That’s just an argument from incredulity dressed up in a Sunday hat.

Not at all. But that is an interesting way of picking a fight. I’m really only interested in responding to this if it remains civil. I never wanted to weigh into the debate. If you wish to maintain your ignorance of my beliefs say so, but making assumptions about my credulity demonstrates bad manners, and I’m not interested in that right now.

The timescales involved are mind-boggling, and the Earth is a really big place.

Which is simply saying that if an infinite number of monkeys is given an infinite number of typewriters the first monkey to hit a key will type Shakespear right off the bat. If he didn’t then he would have to start again. The Earth isn’t infinitely old, nor are there an infinite number of molecules in the ocean…

Ah, but theoretically you only have to succeed once.

No theoretically you have to succeed exactly the number of times necessary to get a fully functional self replicating entity, otherwise you don’t have a fully functional self-replicating entity. All the stages must occur in the same place at the same time. Otherwise the initial protein denatures spontaneously and you have to start again. The Erath isn’t infinitely old, the ocean isn’t infinitely deep
Saying you only have to succeed once is silly, unless you’re implying that you only have to get all the staggering improbabilities right once. In which case you are correct, but that is just saying that it’s improbable and implausible, but we know it must be true because we’re here. That’s religion, not science, and I can’t see why your religion is better than mine.

Here is an excellent article about extensive experimental confirmation that random chance paired with natural selection can produce results superior to the attempts of an intelligent designer:

I know you wrote that before you had a chance to read my caveats above, but I don’t have a beef with natural selection. To have natural selection however you need a functional organism with a full genetic complement. Oh, and that article draws some pretty long bows.

While postulating the existence of a being for which we have absolutely no evidence!!! You can make up a supernatural boogeyman to explain anything you don’t understand, but you haven’t solved the problem.

Of course there is absolutely no evidence for evolution either is there. All we have is theory that fits (some) of the noted facts. That is simply another form of the God of Gaps. As someone else said, it’s a ‘just so story’. It fits the facts and it sounds plausible, but there is no evidence, only deduction. It’s a mundane boogeyman. It certainly doesn’t solve any problems. There is no problem to solve aside from “Can I explain how life originated?” in which case either will solve the problem.

Gods of the gaps have a very short life expectancy,

Can I have reference for that?

and they have no place in scientific discourse

a) Can I have a reference for that?
b) This isn’t a scientific discourse. It’s a philosophical/historical discourse on the theories behind the origin of life.
c) I don’t know about you, but my professional discourse commonly involves Gods as a matter of neccesity.

Jeff_42
It does indeed seem possible that precursors to life could exist on early earth.
Anything is possible in science. Just not very probable.
I’m very familiar with the experiment and the follow ups that have been attempted over the years. The problem is that all of them required the proto-proteins created to be removed from the solution, otherwise the proto-proteins denatured. Added to that not one of them that I have heard about bombarded the broth with the high energy radiation that a pre-ozone layer Earth would have experienced. This has been countered by some of the supporters of the theory by saying that the proteins would have been absorbed by lipid micelles. The problem with this is that as soon as lipids are added to the solution the experiment fails on several levels simulataneously.
As I said above, the presence of amino acids, or even the fact that some of them may spontaneously form proteins is not evidence that this is the way things happened. It would be equally applicable to say that since rocks form crystalline matrices then a huge super-intelligent computer spontaneously arose, and that that is the Earth mother. It fits the known facts, but there are far too many improbable gaps in the middle. It simply becomes an article of faith.

[edwino]

Originally posted by Gaspode

Whadabout RNA? I’d always heard of that as the frist self-replicating molecule, and it can replicate itself without proteins.

OK, a throw-away line in GQ. RNA/DNA would have been more accurate, but the statement holds. Unless there have been some radical changes since I did biochem RNA can’t self replicate without proteins. Even if this were true then you’re saying that RNA capable of self-replication coud form. How the hell do we get ribose sugar in a primitive ocean? And when we do RNA is even less stable and less likely to polymerise in water than protein.

0. Nobody maintains the primordial ocean is exactly the same as what exists today.

1. RNA is quite stable in an acid environment if there are no RNases around. It is base labile, however. DNA is more base stable than RNA.

2. RNA can catalyze its own polymerization, in the form of the Tetrahymena rRNA intron. This is a relatively simple structure, and can regenerate itself to a certain degree. This polymerization and cleavage process is really only one step away from auto-replication.

3. Ribose sugar. Ribose sugar is a fairly simple compound. Plants form them by serial reductions and linkings of CO[sub]2. Very simple organic molecules, pyruvate, glyceraldehyde, and dihydroxyacetone, can be put together to form a 6 carbon sugar. This is easily reduced to a 5-carbon sugar. Most of these reactions can be done in a tube simply by boiling and removing water.

4. Nitrogenous bases are formed by fairly simple reactions between 2 or 3 carbon organic molecules by reactions between amines, ketones, and organic acids. The simplest nitrogenous bases, pyrimidines, contain a 4+2 C+N ring and a few oxygens or nitrogens as side groups. Conceivably, these could form out of two simple 2 carbon amine and hydroxyl containing compounds.

5. Organic phosphate is also plentiful. Reactions between a hydroxyl and an organic phosphate are easily accomplished and are widely used throughout all of nature as an energy currency.

Put 3+4+5 together, and you get a ribonucleic acid. Ribonucleic acid is stable in 300 mOsm pH 4.5 saline, or salt water. We regularly store it as such.

[Gaspode]

*Originally posted by edwino *
0) Nobody maintains the primordial ocean is exactly the same as what exists today.

Me included, so no argument there. I take it no one is now arguing that they were solute free and pH neutral?

1. RNA is quite stable in an acid environment if there are no RNases around. It is base labile, however. DNA is more base stable than RNA.

True, but I said less stable than proteins. How stable would it be in warm saline water, with a regular UV irradiation?

2. RNA can catalyze its own polymerization, in the form of the Tetrahymena rRNA intron. This is a relatively simple structure, and can regenerate itself to a certain degree. This polymerization and cleavage process is really only one step away from auto-replication.

I stand corrected. Is this fairly new information (ie. Last 10 years) or did my biochem lecturer simply not think it important enough to mention?

3. Ribose sugar. Ribose sugar is a fairly simple compound. Plants form them by serial reductions and linkings of CO[sub]2[/sub]. Very simple organic molecules, pyruvate, glyceraldehyde, and dihydroxyacetone, can be put together to form a 6 carbon sugar. This is easily reduced to a 5-carbon sugar. Most of these reactions can be done in a tube simply by boiling and removing water.

No argument there either, but still far more complex than an amino acid, and not really likely to occur in an ocean. My point is that saying RNA evolved spontaneously makes the equation even more complex than saying protein did. It doesn’t make it easier. How stable would a ribose sugar be in acid saline with UV irradiation?

4. Nitrogenous bases are formed by fairly simple reactions between 2 or 3 carbon organic molecules by reactions between amines, ketones, and organic acids. The simplest nitrogenous bases, pyrimidines, contain a 4+2 C+N ring and a few oxygens or nitrogens as side groups. Conceivably, these could form out of two simple 2 carbon amine and hydroxyl containing compounds.

Again, no argument with this. But could the precursors for the bases and the precursors of the sugars actually exist in the same solution and still allow both reactions to occur simultaneously? Or would we nee them to evolve in separate parts of the ocean and drift together after forming. If this is the case how stable are pyrimidines in acid saline with UV irradiation?

5. Organic phosphate is also plentiful. Reactions between a hydroxyl and an organic phosphate are easily accomplished and are widely used throughout all of nature as an energy currency.

So now we add another series of chemical and reactions that need to be present at the same place and time, or else the products have to be stable enough to drift into the range of the rest of the reactants. Again are these reactions compatible with the two above, or do we again need stable drifting products, and how stable are these products in UV irradiated acid saline?

Put 3+4+5 together, and you get a ribonucleic acid.

That simple huh? Arrange silicon crystals in a conductive matrix and wack an electric spark through it and you have AI. It may be possible, but how probable is it that it would occur spontaneously?

[Podkayne]

Ack. I give up. You claim I’m misunderstanding you and taking your statements out of context, and I clearly see you taking my statements out of context (e.g. you are deliberately or accidentally confusing proteins and amino acids). I call you on a formal logical error, and you assume I’m insulting your character. You demand a cite when I say that you can’t invoke a supreme being in scientific discussion. A cite??? You claimed in the last thread to be a scientist. When’s the last time you read an article in a peer reviewed journal that said, “We don’t understand this, therefore we think God did it.”?

I don’t think there’s much ground for intelligent discussion here. I guess I got bored before you did.

[capacitor]

The flaw in the Game of Life is that the ‘randomness’ factor is bounded, so of course stable patterns can develop. Now, work from an totally unbounded set of randomness, and try again.

Gaudere, people are using evolution to testify about atheism here.

[capacitor]

To clarify, boundaries and limits that are programmed are set. The randomness can flourish into perceived patterns within the boundaries set by the programs, while the programs are left alone and running, without any outside factors aiding or disrupting the program. That is, these emerging patterns are done in a virtual vacuum. Are you saying that these patterns then are set into a vacuum, then sent out into the wild to be nurtures or destroyed by natural selection? Then this leaves these question:

1. How are the boundaries and limits of randomness established, without a programmer to set it?

2. If you say that the boundaries are originally set purely by random, then how are these boundaries and limits of DNA and RNA developmnet be maintained, while not done in a virtual vacuum, while there are other random processes surrounding these new enzymes are working to disrupt the emerging patterns?

[Gaspode]

*Originally posted by Podkayne * you are deliberately or accidentally confusing proteins and amino acids.

Where?

I call you on a formal logical error, and you assume I’m insulting your character.

No, I find the automatic assumption that I am making a formal logical error, with nothing more to support it than “I say so” insulting. State, clarify, expand! That’s the usual maxim.

You demand a cite when I say that you can’t invoke a supreme being in scientific discussion. A cite???

And where did I do that exactly. There is a world of difference between invoking a God, and bringing Gods into scientific discourse. Apparently you don’t understand the difference between invoke and discuss.

[bold]You claimed in the last thread to be a scientist. When’s the last time you read an article in a peer reviewed journal that said, “We don’t understand this, therefore we think God did it.”?[/bold]
That should burn really well on those cold winter nights, straw should be nice and dry by then.

I don’t think there’s much ground for intelligent discussion here. I guess I got bored before you did.

My guess would have been you quit while you were ahead. I agree, there is no ground for intelligent discussion.

[bold]Capacitator[/bold], I’m finding your argument a little disjointed. I don’t even know if you’re for the affirmative or the negative here. Could you clear things up a little please?

[capacitor]

The source that Podkayne used comes from http://www.infidels.org, whose explicit mission is to use science to advance the cause of atheism, or what they call “metaphysical naturalism”, particularly when discussing evolution. I railed about using evolution to testify for atheism before, and several Dopers, including the moderators, explicitly said that the evidence of evolution alone is not proof whether or not God or the Divine exists.

I believe that for evolution to happen, some tinkering by a divine source have to come into play, at minimum for originally developing the new kind of animal or plant, and in creating the environment in which the new kind of animal can flourish. Your evidence, Polkadyne, only proves that a programmer or designer is still needed to design or replicate new forms and processes, even when randomness is used as part of the creation process, and the programmer is not sure of the results. Setting boundaries and limits of a random process is a necessary step for that process to eventually produce what we perceive a pattern structure. Does a purely random process bind itself by itself alone?

Now, create structurally complex patterns using the space of the universe as the only boundary and rule.

[jb_farley]

*Originally posted by capacitor *
**using the space of the universe as the only boundary and rule. **

We can’t because that would be disingenuous. We have to use the earth and it’s boundaries. That sets a lot of limits on what could happen and by what mechanism, the same way an intelligent designer would for a computer program.

What I would like to know is where the Creator is interfering, in what part of the process. Is he simply altering probabilities?

Cuz if the problem is with probability, then you can’t explain anything. Why am I here today typing this? The odds of it are incredibly low. The odds of me having turned out to be me are infinitesimly tiny, just looking at the off-track sperm odds from way back when.

Is god responsible for this post?

jb

[Gaspode]

jb
Isn’t the altering of probabilities all that any intelligent designer does? If i build a house I only alter probabilities. All the elements could have come together spontaneously, but that wasn’t very likely, so i directed them instead.
If we accept that there was an intelligent hand in the creation of our species or the universe or simply life itself, then yes God is responsible for your post. In the same way I can say that I am responible for my dog chasing a ball. I made the ball, I bred the dog and designed or modified it’s behaviour, I trained it to chase balls, I am responsible. I don’t need to personally manipulate the dogs legs and mouth to hold this responsibility.

[jb_farley]

fair enough.

I wasn’t sure if you were coming from the intelligent designer just designing (as in a watchmaker) or stepping in, pointing a finger and -poof- we’ve got life.
but given the fact that any occurence is highly improbable with an after-the-fact analysis, why is life so improbable that an intelligent designer is necessary?

jb

[Gaspode]

jb
If I were capable of building a watch so fast that you couldn’t see me move or, for example, build and populate a universe so fast that it only takes six days, then wouldn’t that just be pointing my fingers and poof? I personally wouldn’t make the distinction. Any science sufficiently advanced appears to be magic.

I’ve never held that an intelligent designer is ‘neccesary’ in the same way as other reputable scientists don’t hold that evolution is ‘neccesary’. Neccesity implies that whatever is neccesary exists for some other purpose, that it is not sufficient of and in itself. My belief is simply this:

We have two schools, evolution and (Ooops) creationism.
Evolution is staggeringly improbable. It can never be experimentally proved short of the invention of a time machine or an experiment running x million years and so is never able to become a scientific law. It seems to fit the known facts. There are hypotheses that suggest ways that the current situation could come to be, but they are not probable.

Creationism is staggeringly improbable. It can never be experimentally proved short of the invention of a time machine or the self-revelation of a creator. It seems to fit the known facts. There are hypotheses that suggest ways that the current situation could come to be, but they are not probable.

If we assign evolution a probabilty of say 1 x 10[sup]15[/sup] against then it becomes pretty close to impossible. We can however get some sort of figure on the improbabilty of evolutionary theories.
If we assign Creationism a probability of say 1x10[sup]20[/sup] then it is ‘more impossible’. We can’t however get a good figure on the improbability of creation theories.
Both theories are now highly improbable to the point of being impossible.
However one theory fits all the known facts and can readily explain all facts that will be encountered and is internally consistent when it ignores the laws of physics and improbability. The other theory fits most of the current facts, cannot readily explain all the facts that will be encountered and is internally inconsistent when it ignores the laws of physics and probability.
Why would I choose to believe the latter.
Any argument based on current information that disproves or diminishes A will disprove or dimish B and vice versa. The only difference is one does not fit all the facts and one does.
Which theory does logic tell you to reject?

[jb_farley]

sorry if I wasn’t clear-

I may be misunderstanding and creating a false dichotomy. By -poof- I meant that all of the primorial elements were not in place. No amino acid soups, no self-replicating RNA. Just barren earth, and point of the finger, and SHAZAAM! life.

By watchmaker I meant someone who set all the things into place (soups, RNA) and then let them do their thing.

Are either of these representative of your POV, Gaspode?
jb

[Gaspode]

The only distiction I can draw between the two states is purely temporal.
Obviously now that things are running by themselves there is very little evidence of direct interference from a higher intelligence. I don’t need life breathed into my organ-of-choice each morning. At some stage the system became more or less self-sustaining and to a greater or lesser extent self regulating. This applied whether you’re talking evolution or creation. Whether their was later interference to increase diversity is irrelevant for this discussion. We know the world works.
If you ask whether ‘God’ distilled and refined his chemicals
using elbow grease, or whether he did so by snapping his fingers I don’t know, and can’t see the relevance of either.
The fact is that either theory (evolution or creation) states that all the neccessary (primordial) elements were available in inorganic form. At some stage they came together in the one place at the one time with an energy source and formed the compounds neccessary for autonomous, self-replicating organic life forms against huge odds.
If it happened due to directed thought then the difference between ‘poof’ and a lab full of distilling apparatus, reagents, buffers, titration equipments etc. is only one of time. If I could set up my lab on your kitchen table, run the reactions and dismantle the equipment again so fast that you couldn’t see it happening it would still appear to be magic to you. The same would apply if the equipment were so small you couldn’t see it. The difference between science and magic is only really one of degrees of knowledge and efficiency.

[ianzin]

The other difference between science and magic is that there are no creepy-looking guys in mock-gothic black garb working Las Vegas stages doing science.

C’mon, Gaspode, when are we getting the Ooops! Creationist religion going, as detailed in the original thread?

[capacitor]

jb_farley, if there is no Being to set limits of what can be produced in this universe, then it is up to randomness to set the rules of the universe and the bodies in the first place. Since it is ‘disingenuous’ to think that randomness alone can set such limits from a totally unbound state of the universe, then randomness alone cannot account for the development of the universe, the Earth and the emergence of mankind.