How close are the scientists to
understanding the mechanism behind the origins of the very first life?
Scientists are clueless and none
understand it, says Dr. James Tour. In fact, he is the one person who has the
authority to make such an audacious statement.
Dr.
James Tour isn’t one of those scientists whose primary occupation is to
write books and appear on TV shows. He makes molecules for a living, and he
makes it ab initio. He is one of
the ten most-cited chemists. He is an active synthetic organic chemist who has
more than 130 patents and over 680 research publications. He is the T. T. and
W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, Professor of
Materials Science and NanoEngineering at Rice University. He was named the World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds
by Thomson Reuters.1
James Tour claims that scientists are clueless about the origins
of the first life:2
I have written
a long article on the origin of life:
http://inference-review.com/article/animadversions-of-a-synthetic-chemist. It
is clear, chemists and biologists are clueless. I wrote, “Those who think
scientists understand the issues of prebiotic chemistry are wholly misinformed.
Nobody understands them. Maybe one day we will. But that day is far from today.
It would be far more helpful (and hopeful) to expose students to the massive
gaps in our understanding. They may find a firmer—and possibly a radically
different—scientific theory. The basis upon which we as scientists are relying
is so shaky that we must openly state the situation for what it is: it is a
mystery.”
He goes on to say that scientists
are clueless about the source of the
information that’s required to build the first cell. In other words, no one
knows where that information (to build the very first cell) could have come
from. Dr. Tour writes:3
The
information or coding within the DNA (or RNA) that corresponds to the sequence
of the nucleic acids is primary to the entire discussion of life. Some would
rightly argue that the information is even more fundamental than the matter
upon which it is encoded. I merely showed that the requisite molecules (lipids,
proteins, nucleic acids and carbohydrates) are so unlikely to have occurred in
the states and quantities needed, that we could never have gotten to the point
of figuring out the genesis of the requisite code or information. The code is
analogous to the difference between the Library of Congress and a big box of
alphabetic letters— the library has a huge amount of embedded information while
the random box of letters has little. So origin of first life is the ‘nail
holding the coffin closed’ on the emergence of biological evolution. Without
that first life, or simple cell, which requires the four molecule types plus
information, all proposals regarding biological evolution are without the base
of life. And it is difficult to discuss biology without life.
But even if
one were given all the molecules needed in complete stereochemical purity, and
the information code, could a cell be constructed using the chemical and
biochemical tools that we have today? I have written about such a hypothetic
experiment, and how it would be impossible, using today’s expertise, to even
construct the lipid bilayer, namely the exterior packaging that holds the
cell’s nanomachinery in place. Just the lipid bilayer (which itself surrounds
thousands of nanosystems) is beyond our ability to synthesize. The conclusion
of that thought experiment is that “life based upon amino acids, nucleotides,
saccharides and lipids is an anomaly. Life should not exist anywhere in our
universe. Life should not even exist on the surface of the earth.” “Yet we are
led to believe that 3.8 billion years ago the requisite compounds could be
found in some cave, or undersea vent, and somehow or other they assembled
themselves into the first cell.”
J. Warner Wallace of Cold Case
Christianity enlightens us more about this dilemma:4
The building
blocks of life (proteins, ribosomes, enzymes etc.) are formed at the direction
of specific nucleotide sequencing in DNA, the largest molecule known. In
humans, DNA contains as many as 10 billion atoms. The adenine, guanine,
cytosine, and thymine bases in DNA are linked in a particular order to form the
genetic code containing the master plan for every organism. The information in
DNA guides and instructs the formation of proteins; without it, protein
formation would be a haphazard, hit-or-miss proposal. The nucleic sequence in
DNA is informational.
Physicist Paul
Davies expresses it well: “Once this essential point is grasped, the real
problem of biogenesis is clear. Since the heady successes of molecular biology,
most investigators have sought the secret of life in the physics and chemistry
of molecules. But they will look in vain for conventional physics and chemistry
to explain life, for that is a classic case of confusing the medium with the
message. The secret of life lies, not in its chemical basis, but in the logical
and informational rules it exploits.”
Information in
RNA and DNA presents a problem for researchers, especially those who propose
RNA as the first molecule to appear through some combination of chance and
chemical necessity (known as the “RNA World Hypothesis”). Even if RNA is a precursor
to DNA, the first RNA molecules would have to be rich in information to
replicate. Information must exist first, before any other transformational
process can take place. Without the prior genetic information in DNA and RNA,
nothing of significance happens within cells.
Nucleotide
sequences are more than statistical gibberish. They are semantically,
pragmatically, and apobetically significant sources of information (for more
information on these categories of information, see my new book, God’s Crime
Scene). The genetic sequence has meaning and directs action for a specific
purpose.
Our personal
experience tells us information comes only from intelligent sources. In fact,
in the entire history of the universe (and the history of science) a single instance
of information arising from anything other than intelligence has never been
identified. This presents a problem for those who attempt to stay “in the room”
of the universe to account for genetic information. If we limit ourselves to
the materials available to us in the universe, information must be explained
from matter, chance, the laws of chemistry or physics, and nothing more. Nobel
winning biophysical chemist, Manfred Eigen recognized this challenge when he
once said, “Our task is to find an algorithm, a natural law that leads to the
origin of information.” Efforts to account for information in this way have
repeatedly failed. In fact, the information in DNA proves to be the decisive
stumbling block for every naturalistic theory offered for the origin of life.
…The chance
arrangement of information in DNA is prohibitively improbable, and there are no
chemical or physical laws at work to dictate its existence. We are left, then,
with a paradox: the laws and forces of nature cannot produce information, but
information is required for life to begin. As Paul Davies laments, “we are
still left with the mystery of where biological information comes from . . . If
the normal laws of physics can’t inject information, and if we are ruling out
miracles, then how can life be predetermined and inevitable rather than a freak
accident? How is it possible to generate random complexity and specificity
together in a lawlike manner? We always come back to that basic paradox.”
Given the
utter inability of chance or natural law, and our observations related to the
origin of information, intelligence is the best explanation. But this requires
us to look for an intelligent source transcending the limits of the physical
universe. Scientists trying to account for information by staying “inside the
room” seem to be rejecting the obvious. In order to create information, the
author of this information must have the ability to select between possible
alternatives. This ability to choose selectively requires intelligence, will,
and purpose. Unguided physical processes simply cannot accomplish the task.
German engineer and IT specialist, Werner Gitt summarizes it this way: “A
necessary requirement for generating meaningful information is the ability to
select from alternatives and this requires an intelligent, volitional entity .
. . Unguided, random processes cannot do this—not in any amount of time—because
this selection process demands continuous guidance by intelligent beings that
have a purpose.”
The selection
process required in the creation of information requires an intelligent,
volitional free agent. That’s why the information in DNA most reasonably points
to the existence of God. For a much more thorough description of this evidence,
please refer to God’s Crime Scene, Chapter Three – The Origin of Life: Does the
Text Require an Author?
It’s sufficiently clear that OOL
scientists are not even close to understanding the mechanism behind the origin
of the first self-replicating life. Given this situation, James Tour exhorts
his fellow scientists to admit that the scientific
community is far from understanding the origins of the very first life:5
[J]OHN
SUTHERLAND, one of OOL’s giants and the most skilled synthetic chemist to
engage in OOL research, has recently proposed that “chemical determinism can no
longer be relied on as a source of innovation, and further improvements have to
be chanced upon instead.”31 Chanced upon? It appears that Sutherland has come
to appreciate the depths of the problems facing OOL researchers. In 2017,
Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy et al. showed that diamidophosphate can phosphorylate
nucleosides, nucleotides, and stereo-scrambled lipid precursors. These can
further result in the formation of random oligonucleotides and oligopeptides.
The fundamental challenges with respect to synthesis and assembly remain
unaddressed. Krishnamurthy was rightly measured in writing about “the pitfalls
of extrapolating extant biochemical pathways backwards all the way to prebiotic
chemistry and vice versa.”32 In 2018, Clemens Richert argued that “the ideal
experiment does not involve any human intervention.”33 This is a step in the
right direction. So, too, is the fact that he scrupled at the pure chemicals
used by the OOL community.
It is time for
a temporary time out. Why not admit what we cannot yet explain: the mass
transfer of starting materials to the molecules needed for life; the origin of
life’s code; the combinatorial complexities present in any living system; and
the precise nonregular assembly of cellular components?
It would be
helpful if leading researchers, among them very sophisticated synthetic
chemists, were to step back, pause, and join forces. If the origins of life
remain a mystery, two goals are within reach: an agreement about the rational
standards by which OOL research should be judged, and a candid acknowledgment
of the problems that remain to be overcome. A statement of this sort would be
reassuring in its candor.34
Endnotes:
1https://www.jmtour.com/about/resume/
2https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/
3Ibid.
4https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/why-the-information-in-our-dna-points-to-the-existence-of-god/
5https://inference-review.com/article/time-out
Websites last accessed on 29th
September 2019.
No comments:
Post a Comment