Previously, I wrote an article addressing a description of “specified complexity”, any why it’s a fairly useless indicator of design. A commenter plopped into the comments section an article (fp) which addresses the improbability of abiogenesis.

That article, and ongoing comments in favor of specified complexity, seem to making errors along similar lines.

This is a longer article. I’ve split it into two sections, the first containing my primary point, and the rest is just cleanup.

Disproving the Model

This is the first paragraph, emphasis mine.

Louis Pasteur proved that living organisms come from other living organisms and do not spontaneously come to life from non living material. 150 years later there are some that believe that all life arose from a cell or cells that spontaneously generated from non living material. Perhaps the law of biogenesis is more of a guideline rather than a law. Or perhaps everything that has ever been observed in nature by scientists over the last 150 years affirms the validity of this law. So the spontaneous generation of a theoretical original cell is a violation of this law and is contradictory to scientific observation.

The topic is a little convoluted (Wikipedia).

In short, some people were claiming that things like maggots, mold, germs, etc, spontaneously emerged from non-living matter. Pasteur demonstrated that many of these things actually spawned from existing life. A properly sealed and de-germed container of meat, for instance, would never spontaneously spawn germs.

That sounds kind of damning on its surface, but what actually happened is that there were specific claims about specific types of organisms, and those specific claims were disproven. That’s fine, but that doesn’t actually apply to abiogenesis. Why would it? For one thing, “spontaneous generation” and “abiogenesis” aren’t even the same topic.

In addition, it’d be like saying that we’ve only observed rivers coming from rivers, therefore, rivers could not have come from rain.

On a more fundamental level, this assertion that he disproved “spontaneous generation” is basically trying to prove a negative. That doesn’t work, nor is it scientific. What he did was falsify a positive claim someone else made. Someone could disprove my assertion that tornadoes spawn on the moon, without disproving that tornadoes spawn, period.

Both sides agree that life started at some point. The next question is “how?”

Let this set the tone for the rest of the author’s article. Try not to let the author’s repeated use of “theoretical” make your eye twitch, as though the word means “hypothetical.” If you do read the article, you should vow to take a drink every time the word “theoretical” pops up.

Before I continue, let me make one thing clear. I do not believe in Abiogenesis. I do not accept that it’s true.

Why not? It’s still largely speculative. At best, we have some positive evidence pointing in its direction. We don’t actually know how it happened, or whether it happened… yet. Though, what do I mean by “it”? There’s a number of different models that are proposed. Just skim through the Wikipedia article linked earlier. It’s broad topic.

The author spends quite a bit of time in the article, trying to calculate the improbability of abiogenesis; for instance:

In other words, if one of the theoretical protein molecules in the theoretical cell had 50 amino acid links, multiply 20 x 20 x 20 etc. 50 times. So the probability of the first two links being in the correct sequence is 20 x 20 = 400 or one chance in 400. The probability of the first 3 links being in the correct sequence is 20 x 20 x 20 = 8000 or one chance in 8000. As a mathematical shortcut to visualize how big of a number you get when multiplying 20 x 20 fifty times, do this: Multiply 2 x 2 fifty times (2 x 2 x 2 ……) and tack on 50 zeros to the end of that number.

I did an exercise once. I have a box of 100 standard 6-sided dice. I wondered how long it’d take me to roll all “6”s. According to all the maths, that’s about a 1:6.5*10^77 chance of happening.

I got it in 27 rolls.

Of course, I had a mechanism helping me. For each round of rolling, I only re-rolled the ones that weren’t already “6”.

This article blows my mind, and not because of the probability calculations. How can I put this succinctly?

In order for the author to calculate the probability of a mechanism, he/she (I have no idea – the author isn’t even named) must have adopted a mechanism. It’d be silly to say “I don’t how know this mechanism works or what it is, but I calculated a 1:20,000,000 chance that it could work.”

… but we don’t have an established mechanism or model for abiogenesis yet.

So what in the Blaise Pascal’s Hell Almighty is the author calculating probability about? Whatever the author is trying to disprove, it’s ultimately a straw man – something he/she contrived for the sake of having something to knock down. The rest of the article is literally an exercise of “can you spot every possible assumption the author is making, that could greatly increase the odds?” Like me rolling the dice, reality may have one or more filters, phenomenon or mechanisms that can drastically improve the situation. Once we consider that the topic is still largely unknown territory, those mechanisms could be unknown, and could surprise us when/if we discover them, like so much of science already has.

You’d think someone who realizes that point would also realize that such an article on probability is pointless at this stage.

The/Our Ignorance

The author seems to be assuming that the proteins would just be randomly scrambled each iteration, as opposed to some filter/selection process causing an accumulation of “correct” sequences, for example.

To put into perspective of how wrong the author’s basic approach is, we can propose something:

There exists a natural mechanism, that we don’t currently know about, that has a high likelihood to initialize the self-replicating organic molecule/cell lineage.

Of course, since I proposed it, the onus is on me to actually demonstrate such a thing… but my point is, the author cannot prove a negative, nor can he/she calculate the probability of the mechanism, since the mechanism is unknown. Don’t get me wrong – the author is essentially trying to engage in falsification, but falsification typically waits for a specific claim or model to be proposed first.

… otherwise, the author is essentially valiantly in mortal combat with that mechastraw man.

This tendency to have an extremely narrow view of the possibilities, making assumptions left and right, are a constant through the rest of the article. Keep in mind that, it’s one thing for the author to simply be addressing one model, but he/she then repeatedly concludes that “spontaneous generation” is simply impossible.

Emphases mine. Since I cannot read the author’s mind, I’ll be noting what I perceive as assumptions.

The main problem with producing Amino acids by natural processes, apart from formation within a living organism is that a mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids will be formed. These two forms of amino acids are chemically the same but the component atoms of each are put together differently. In fact, mirror images of each other. In living organisms, virtually all amino acids are left handed. The Miller experiment produced a 50/50 mixture of both. Half left-handed and half right-handed. Typically one right-handed amino acid in in protein molecule will render the protein useless or inactive.

– Author assumes that no natural mechanism exists that’d favor one over the other.

– Author assumes that because the Miller-Urey experiments produced different results, that it’s not possible. The experiments show that amino acids can spontaneously form, but don’t necessarily show how they did form for abiogenesis.

This NASA article discusses research on how excesses of one over the other could have taken hold. I’ll italicize the font to distinguish from the creationist article.

The team believes a small initial left-hand excess could get amplified by crystallization and dissolution from a saturated solution with liquid water. Some amino acids, like aspartic acid, have a shape that lets them fit together in a pure crystal – one comprised of just left-handed or right-handed molecules. For these amino acids, a small initial left- or right-hand excess could become greatly amplified at the expense of the opposite-handed crystals, similar to the way a large snowball gathers more snow and gets bigger more rapidly when rolled downhill than a small one.

While still being researched, and still quite speculative, again, the author must assume that such mechanisms do not exist for the probability calculations to matter.

Proteins are made of 20 different amino acids. The amino acids are chemically bonded together like links in a chain. The specific arrangement or sequence of amino acids determines the characteristics and function of each protein molecule. To calculate the probability of the correct amino acid sequence in a given molecule in the first theoretical non-living cell, you only need to know two things: The probability of a particular amino acid in the sequence being the correct amino acid out of a possible 20 amino acid is one chance in 20.

He/she doesn’t list a second thing.

– Author assumes what is a “correct” sequence.

– Author assumes that the current “correct” sequences would be the same as life initially.

– Author assumes that the simpler life would require as complex proteins/sequences as today.

– Author assumes that no mechanism assists the probability, and that it’s just random.

… The probability of the first 4 links being in the correct sequence in one chance in 2,560,000 or about one chance in 2 and a half million. To get a handle on the probability of getting all 50 links in the correct sequence multiply 4 x 4 fifty times and tack on 50 zeros to the end of that number. That is a really big number. Some enzymes are made up of thousands of amino acids. The first theoretical non-living cell must have had many protein molecules perhaps 100 or more.

– Author is making assumptions about the first self-replicating cells, that scientists aren’t. I don’t know where he/she got the “100 or more” protein molecules.

Some of these assumptions are repeats.

So, if every particle in the universe represented a trial and error formation by natural processes of just two of the theoretical proteins, you could possibly get two molecules that were correct at the same time somewhere in there. The odds would still be against it.

Not all “trial and error” is the same. My rolling the 100-dice was trial and error. I beat the odds I’d otherwise have. What author assumes by “trial and error”, and seems to assume the molecular biology would do it, is nothing like what is actually proposed.

By the way, proteins have not been observed to form by natural processes apart from living organisms and isn’t that what scientific theory is all about?

I actually agree. That’s why I hesitate to call it a “theory” yet. That’s why the author’s article is wasting breath. Every model went through a stage where it had little to no positively supporting evidence. That’s not unusual.

Just the left-hand, right-hand problem destroys any hope of spontaneous generation. The chance of all the links in all 50 protein molecules being correct can be calculated by multiplying 2 x 2 2500 times.

Maybe some supporting mechanisms might rekindle your hope for spontaneous generation abiogenesis? You know, those things you seem completely oblivious to?

DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) is the molecule inside a cell that among other things contains the code for making protein molecules. As a cell grows it takes in nutrients and produces protein molecules. When the cell is large enough it splits into two cells. The ability for the cell to produce the correct amino acid sequences in the various protein molecules is dependant on the specific sequence of molecules in DNA called nucleotides. If the sequence of nucleotides is incorrect the cell will produce proteins with the wrong amino acid sequence. The DNA molecule contains the code for every type of protein in the cell as well as the code for the specific structure of the cell. The probability that the DNA in the first non-living theoretical cell contained the correct code for all the types of protein molecules in that cell is the combined improbabilities of at least one of each type of protein molecule in that cell having the correct amino acid sequences at the point in time the cell spontaneously transitioned from being dead to being alive.

– Author assumes that the first cells are like modern cells, with all the requirements therein.

– Author assumes that requirements for each protein/feature couldn’t have been introduced at a point where it wasn’t a requirement, but rather simply a boost to survival.

Again, the author just assumes that it all had to come flying together all at once, instead of through some other, more reasonable, evolutionary pathway.

The first cells were likely incredibly simple.

You may want to re-read that last sentence a few times so the implications become apparent.

Yep, you might.

Cells contain structures called organelles. The are like small organs within the cell that have specific functions. Some of the organelles and other structures one might expect to find in this theoretical cell are endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi apparatus, mitochondria, nucleus, DNA, RNA, and cell membrane. At the very least, the theoretical minimum set of component parts to sustain cellular life needed to be present at the same time and place. The component parts needed to be structurally correct and needed to, by chance and unknown natural processes not associated with living organisms, be in a state of correct assemblage. That is a strange concept.

Yep, that is strange.

– Author assumes the modern cell structure when evaluating early cell structure.

– Author assumes that these “parts” couldn’t have evolved independently (as separate cells), that were “correct” before becoming part of a larger cell, when the larger cell didn’t strictly need them (but then later grew dependent upon them).

… Basically, the same IC crap.

Keep in mind that bacteria do not have organelles. Apparently, that’s already possible.

The complete simplest theoretical cell needed to be produced by a set of natural processes, Then transition from a dead state to a living state, and then grow and reproduce by an entirely different set of natural processes other than the ones that originally generated it. Highly improbable? No. Totally impossible.

Keep in mind that this idea of “dead state to living state” isn’t very well understood.

Author assumes that the “set of natural processes” that produced life still exists. How is that impossible? Earth’s environment hasn’t been static the entire time it’s existed. One of those changes of environment could, itself, have been a lack of life. If abiogenesis was happening today, we might not even notice or recognize it, because it’s constantly being consumed by currently-existing life.

If we don’t know what the first cells would be like, how would we recognize it by looking at random samples of water?

Due to the fact that there is massive amounts of calcium on land and in the oceans, there would be no free phosphorus to form DNA. All the theoretically free phosphorus would end up in the form of calcium phosphate in no time.

– Author assumes that there are no chemical pathways to retrieve reacted phosphorus.

– Author assumes that there aren’t ongoing sources of phosphorus.

– Author assumes that phosphorus didn’t react with different elements/molecules to establish a more accessible state for biology.

– Author assumes that phosphorus was needed for early self-replicating cells.

Hell, current organisms somehow manage to get phosphorus for things like DNA… so unless the author thinks cells use magic to get phosphorus, obviously there exists chemistry which can do it.

The theoretical primordial earth atmosphere contained no oxygen. As useful molecules were theoretically being produced by bolts of lightning they would be destroyed by ultraviolet light since there would be no ozone layer.

– Author assumes what counted as “useful molecules”.

– Author assumes those molecules were susceptible to UV rays in the same way that modern DNA was susceptible.

– Author assumes that the source of “useful molecules” comes from sources that are bombarded by UV rays. Abiogenesis might have occurred in the shade.

– Author assumes that lightning was the only way to get those “useful molecules”, assuming that the Urey-Miller experiments are the only way to spontaneously form amino acids.

According to Scientific American, UV affects specifically the thymine amino acid. Maybe the first replicating RNA/DNA didn’t use it. In addition, simply being exposed to UV rays wasn’t a guarantee of damage.

At some later time some of these molecules might end up on land in a muddy little evaporating puddle or pond with less dilution. Then they would be destroyed by ultraviolet light. If the atmosphere contained oxygen, these same molecules would be oxidized and useless.

– Author assumes that O has the same chemical properties as O2, and O3, as opposed to O2 being a relatively stable form of Oxygen that will react with less things than O… for the same reason that the oxygen in water (H2O) is extremely non-reactive.

Some might theorize that the first living cell might be of the type that would exist near a submerged volcanic vent far from the perils of the earths surface. This cell would reproduce and future generations of cells would produce oxygen by some method other than photosynthesis. As impossible as this is, you still have to get to that first cell. So all the afore mentioned problems still apply.

The author (G-d, I’m sick of that word), doesn’t explain why it’s impossible. He/she also assumes that chemistry of the volcanic vent life would have the same chemistry/molecular biology as the cells he’s looking for. Life could have started at the vents, under one set of chemical pathways, and as the life spread further away from the vents, adapted to their new environments, producing the cells he/she is more familiar with.

… but I forgot, that’s impossible.

The author ends with this (I did skip a lot).

One last thought. Someone once wrote something like this: If you had an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters all the books that have ever been written and would ever be written would be written. The problem is there is no such thing as an infinite number of monkeys and typewriters. Ok. Lets deal with the finite. Lets start with a meaningful paragraph 2500 characters in length. Forget case and punctuation lets just get the spelling correct. There is 1 chance in 26 of getting the first letter correct. What is the probability of getting the first two letters correct?…..

Yes, let’s play that game.

First, we should understand that for every word, different combinations of letters can produce many “valid” words. Likewise, the 500 or so words (if we’re assuming 4-5 letters per word), could recombine into a plethora of “meaningful” paragraphs.

Let’s throw out “meaningful”, because that just biases the requirement. A human may find a love poem meaningful, but life/DNA only needs to “work”… meaning, that “meaningful” here only, if it were life, only requires that the sequence of words are “spelled correctly”, and “grammatically intelligible”.

That means that “the dog ran through the red house door“, could be meaningful. So could “the house ran through the red dog door“, “the red house dog ran through the door“, “the red house ran through the dog door“, etc.

If we compare back to biology, combine that with the sheer amount of generations of microorganisms through the whole ocean, with generational rates in the minutes, through billions of years, in potentially millions of planets with suitable conditions, per galaxy, through hundreds of billions of galaxies, and… why not octillions of universes inthe multiverse… that improves the odds of life spawning somewhere. Of course we wouldn’t evolve in a universe that didn’t spawn life.

I don’t know how the author can declare impossibility when we don’t even know how many universes there are. If there’s infinite, it may literally be impossible for life to not spontaneously form in one of them. We could very well be sitting in that lucky universe lottery winner. Even if the author shows that it’s nearly impossible in this universe, that might not actually matter. That’s what happens when we’re talking about speculative guessing about negative assertions.

… it might not be infinite monkeys… not quite. Once we start adding in mechanisms which make the process easier, the probability for abiogenesis quickly approaches inevitability.

Articles like this are just… vapid. They make a silly-ridiculous amount of assumptions, and are trying to calculate probability on whatever convenient model they happened to manufacture.

Falsification of asserted models if fine, but don’t think to claim that you somehow have the magical ability to prove a negative. I shouldn’t have to do the author’s homework for looking up every topic for him/her, but at least I can assess the rudimentary approach being taken, regardless of the specifics.

The entire article may as well have been, “The U.S. cannot siege my desert castle. Look, I’ve proven that submarines don’t work in the desert! Hah!“