Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question which is actually the darkest point of the complete evolution theory. 'Origin of Life', 1953 (Reprint), p.196
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. Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers", Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol 13. No.4, 1988, p.348
Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on earth? Jeffrey Bada, Earth, February 1998, p.40
To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see is an object of unparalelled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings like port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... (a complexity) beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man..."
= 1/20
= 1/20500 = 1/10650 = 1 chance in 10650
= 1/2
= 1/2500 = 1/10150 = 1 chance in 10150
= 1/2499 = 1/10150 = 1 chance in 10150 Total Probability = 1/10650 X 1/10150 X 1/10150 = 1/10950 = 1 chance in 10950
= 1/10950 = 1 chance in 10950
Who are we?
Were did we come from?
These are both incredibly important because from them we derive a sense of identity and history. In the past the main arena for these sorts of questions was the debate between religion and philosophy, and the intellectual rigour imposed that for the vast majority of people the discussion was quite beyond them, and they relied on their local religious leader or representative of the academic community to take them through it. In modern times, the arena has shifted to Micro-Biology, and genetics, and associated realms of science, and again the battle is between philosophy, religion, and now science. However, if we are to believe philosophy or religion or science, the other two simply don't exist as they have no value except through an understanding of themselves. Yet, even if we remain impartial we are still left with the questions: Who are we? Where did we come form?
The node above, while superb in it's proof of the unlikeliness of chance protien production, and the inclusion of valued commentary from noted Biologists of our time, fails to answer this question directly by proposing, or supporting a theory of it's own. It simply negates the currently accepted view that life evolved from more primitive forms, by a process of chance, (and perhaps natural selection). Now while we have all been taught to accept this view, to get our marks from school/uni, we should perhaps pay heed to the objections that the noted scholars above have made. Again, we face the problem that although we are much more educated than our ancestors, relatively speaking we are no better off for taking part in this important discussion. There are really only a very few Biologists, Philosophers, and Theologians that know their stuff well enough to be able to argue fairly about this topic.
That being said, we still have our own Reason to fall back on, and perhaps an examination of the problem might be valuable.
There are a number of options:
These are pretty well mutually exclusive. Ie if one is true, then the others are likely not to be true. Having said this, the available evidence does point to an ordered and structured universe that does follow intelligable laws, and a consistent framework. Our own intuition suggests then that the first option is highly likely. Although we may not understand the role of such an entity in a continuing universe, we cannot preclude the information around us that points to a reasoning intellect behind the ordered universe we see around us.
That doesn't stop us, however from also examining the scientific advances in Biology as well. It is perfectly possible that we may learn to fill the gaps and illuminate the dark areas in the theory of evolution, however currently, like the first theory, it is only a theory, and every person must decide which theory most closely fits to their picture of the universe. The Other option is there waiting for something to come along and blow the other two theories out of the water, this is highly unlikely, but it is possible, so it's good practice to cover all the bases. And on that basis (pun intended) I intend to finish this wu.
Doesn't that argument then raise another issue, namely, that a being as complex as God had to have been created by something even more complex? He couldn't just have happened, could he?
If you buy the argument that the universe couldn't have come into existence on its own, how can you buy the idea that God existed on his own? Seems to me you can make a strong case for either idea. And if you want to believe in God, that's fine. But I find it hard for you to dismiss the arguments of people who choose to believe something else.
In fact, rk2001 has fallen into the exact same trap as many scientists - "if it has maths in, it must be true". The final figure given is already unimaginably large, but still an under-estimate! You might consider things like: availability of each amino acid, reversibility of peptide bond formation, cyclic peptide side-products etc etc. The worst counter-argument would be to go into a detailed study of these numbers, with probabilities and models and whatnot. This would only further put off anyone reading - and would only invite accusations of confusing the issue.
However that kind of response is unecessary since the solution is much, much simpler. I refute the probability calculations thus:
I can make proteins from amino acids at random.
It's really quite simple, just boil up some amino acids and you get protein. Now, rk2001's calculations show that the probability of any particular protein (one whose sequence you decided on before you started) appearing in the mixture is very tiny. This matters not at all - nobody specified a particular protein, and we didn't get one.
So the statement "The Probability of a Protein Being Formed by Chance is Zero" is wrong. The maths might be right, but it's answering the wrong question. As it happens, there is a lot of theory to support much more complicated scenarios for life's origins - but I don't think that the 'truth' of religious belief will be decided in the labs of molecular biology.
printable version chaos
Everything2 Help
