Below is a paper that gained attention at atheists' groups. Atheists were concerned that the authors were creationists, they are not! 😂 I wish all scientific theory would be so well-guarded. Imagine every single paper in science receiving this load of attention from the general public.
The authors are trying to separate creation from evolution of life. It is similar to the Big Bang. The Big Bang is about how the universe is expanding, it is not about how the universe started.
Introduction
In a recent paper, researchers Olen R. Brown and David A. Hullender revisit a question fundamental to both biology and philosophy: how did life first arise on Earth? Their work critiques the prevailing theories around abiogenesis—the process by which life is thought to emerge from non-living matter—and offers an alternative perspective. They argue that the odds of life originating through the usual mechanisms described by neo-Darwinism are almost impossibly low. By emphasizing the need for “co-origination”—the simultaneous emergence of essential biochemical functions—the authors contend that natural selection alone cannot adequately explain life’s beginnings.
This argument doesn’t directly challenge Darwin’s theory of evolution, which addresses the process by which living organisms change over time. Instead, it questions whether these principles can apply at the very start of life, before evolution as we understand it could even begin.
Origins vs. Evolution: Clarifying the Distinction
It’s essential to differentiate between the origin of life and the evolution of life. Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection explains how species change and diversify over time but does not address how life itself began. Brown and Hullender’s critique is thus focused on abiogenesis rather than on evolutionary theory as a whole. They argue that the leap from non-living to living entities involves a complexity that defies the gradual, incremental changes fundamental to Darwinian evolution.
The authors introduce "co-origination," a concept suggesting that many complex biochemical processes necessary for life would need to occur simultaneously, in sync. This notion challenges the probability of life emerging solely through random interactions and gradual natural selection, emphasizing that, for life to begin, specific enzyme and coenzyme functions had to be present from the start.
Methods: Assessing the Probability of Life’s Origins
Brown and Hullender approach their critique quantitatively, using probability to evaluate how likely it is that life could emerge through random interactions of molecules in a “warm little pond,” as Darwin once envisioned. They focus on the relationships between enzymes and coenzymes, which are vital for sustaining life processes. Enzymes drive essential chemical reactions, while coenzymes (often derived from vitamins) assist them. Without both, metabolic functions that define living organisms would not occur.
Their calculations show that, even under favorable assumptions, the probability of achieving a self-sustaining, living cell through these random interactions is minuscule. Depending on the assumptions made, their estimates range from 10−22710^{-227}10−227 to 10−113710^{-1137}10−1137—numbers so low that they border on the unimaginable. In this light, the spontaneous emergence of life, as posited by conventional abiogenesis, appears exceedingly improbable.
Results: Challenging Conventional Abiogenesis
The findings underscore a primary challenge to the standard models of abiogenesis: the improbability of life emerging purely through chemical interactions. Brown and Hullender’s probability calculations suggest that the random assembly of molecules into a functional cell, even in ideal conditions, is an unlikely event. They argue that current evolutionary frameworks fall short of explaining how complex biochemical systems needed for even the simplest life forms could have arisen through unguided processes.
The authors argue that without co-origination—where enzymes and coenzymes are simultaneously present—life would be unsustainable. This conclusion raises the question of whether natural selection, often cited as the mechanism by which life diversified, is relevant at all in explaining life’s origins.
Discussion: Revisiting Neo-Darwinism’s Limitations
The authors’ critique raises significant implications for neo-Darwinian evolution. While evolution explains how life changes and adapts, the question of how life first began remains open. Neo-Darwinism incorporates genetic variation, natural selection, and other mechanisms to explain change within existing life forms. But it presupposes the existence of life; it does not explain how life came into being. Brown and Hullender argue that without simultaneous, essential functions—a situation required by their co-origination concept—there’s little room for natural selection to operate.
This distinction is critical, as it avoids directly challenging Darwinian evolution’s validity for living organisms and instead addresses a “pre-evolution” phase. By showing that the odds of life emerging as we understand it are astronomically low, the authors call for a reevaluation of the assumptions underlying origin-of-life research.
Abiogenesis vs. Creationism: Avoiding Misinterpretation
It’s worth noting that Brown and Hullender’s critique does not endorse creationism or any supernatural explanation for life’s origins. They approach abiogenesis from a purely scientific perspective, raising questions about the adequacy of current models rather than suggesting divine intervention. While the improbability they calculate might lead some to see a “gap” for religious explanations, the authors remain focused on the need for more robust scientific theories to explain life’s origins naturally.
This paper, therefore, does not deny Darwinian evolution. It highlights the complexity of life’s origins as a distinct scientific puzzle that may require new principles beyond natural selection. In much the same way physics separates the Big Bang from the subsequent evolution of the universe, Brown and Hullender suggest that we need new theories to explain life’s first spark.
Conclusion: Rethinking the Origin of Life
Brown and Hullender’s paper leaves us with a profound question: if neo-Darwinian mechanisms cannot account for the origin of life, what alternative explanations might we consider? Their work highlights that evolution, as currently understood, cannot entirely bridge the gap between non-living and living matter. Rather than challenging Darwinian evolution itself, they call for a nuanced, updated approach to understanding the complexity involved in life’s earliest moments.
Their insights invite scientists and thinkers alike to expand our understanding of life’s origins, possibly incorporating new theories or mechanisms that might one day solve the mystery of how life arose in “Darwin’s warm little pond.” In the meantime, the journey of discovery continues, driven by the desire to uncover the answers to one of biology’s oldest questions.
Initial conditions seem rather simple... if we can figure it out and reproduce it, it's not that complicated... life likely exists in much of the universe... the overwhelming time/distance gap is nearly impossible to overcome.. a species would require incredible intelligence, resources, ingenuity and collective work to achieve communication with any other species in the universe during its relatively short existence.... Life is short.. there may be almost no overlap within achievable ranges... with ~800 trillion galaxies., but the existence of life across the universe is a mathematical certainty...
Your insights touch upon several critical themes in the study of life y, astrobiology, and the potential for extraterrestrial intelligence. The concept that simple initial conditions could lead to the development of life supports the idea that life might indeed be a common occurrence throughout the universe. This perspective aligns with the views of many scientists who posit that, given the vastness of the universe and the number of stars harboring potentially habitable planets, the emergence of life is not just possible but statistically likely. However, while the initial emergence of life may appear straightforward, the transition to complex life forms poses additional challenges, as highlighted by Brown and Hullender's work. They draw attention to not only the mechanisms that facilitate the origin of life but also the fundamental complexities that arise during evolution. This complexity is compounded by the apparent rarity of conditions conducive to life, as seen in their discussions on co-origination and the improbability of assembling the requisite biochemical systems without intervention or ideal conditions. The notion of the "great filter" also surfaces in these discussions. This theory posits that there may be significant barriers to the emergence of intelligent life, suggesting that while life might be widespread, intelligent civilizations capable of communication may be exceedingly rare. The communication challenges between civilizations across immense distances and timescales could indeed reduce the likelihood of overlapping existences. As you noted, with approximately 800 trillion galaxies in the observable universe, it stands to reason that life, if it emerges under sufficiently diverse conditions, would manifest in varied forms. The scalability of life, however, along with the required collective intelligence and resources for inter-species communication over interstellar distances, leads to the conclusion that while life is mathematically probable, the existence of advanced intelligences capable of meaningful exchange may be a far different scenario. Thus, while your points illustrate the potential breadth and resilience of life across the universe, they also align with ongoing conversations about the complexity, rarity, and interconnectedness of conscious civilizations in the vast cosmic expanse.
Scientists have been able to reproduce conditions that may have led to the formation of life on Earth in laboratory experiments, most notably through the "Miller-Urey experiment" which simulated the early Earth's atmosphere by exposing a mixture of gases like methane, ammonia, and water vapor to electrical sparks, resulting in the creation of amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, demonstrating how organic molecules could have formed from inorganic matter under early Earth conditions. It seems life in this universe happens under the right conditions, and those conditions are not that stringent... so much complex life already exists on earth, almost any new basic life structures would most likely be immediately consumed by more complex life... Guess they are questioning are the initial conditions
Your reflection on the Miller-Urey experiment and the discussion around conditions for the emergence of life addresses a significant aspect of the ongoing debate in astrobiology and evolutionary theory. The experiment indeed demonstrated that organic compounds can form from inorganic precursors under certain simulated conditions reminiscent of early Earth. This has led many scientists to believe that the building blocks of life could have arisen spontaneously in the primordial environment. However, the paper by Brown and Hullender shifts the focus toward the complexities involved once these basic organic compounds are formed. While the Miller-Urey experiment provides insight into how life-like building blocks can form, the authors emphasize the next step: the co-origination of essential biological molecules like enzymes and coenzymes necessary for a minimal living cell. Their argument highlights that although basic organic molecules might emerge under favorable conditions, the simultaneous emergence and organization of the various systems required to create even a simple cell is astronomically improbable. This co-origination not only underscores the complexity of life but also raises questions about how such intricate systems could have developed without some form of guiding mechanism or framework. In essence, while the initial conditions for the formation of organic compounds may not be stringent, the transition from those compounds to a self-sustaining living system involves a level of complexity that the authors argue is unlikely to have occurred purely through natural processes as currently understood in evolutionary theory. Thus, they call for a reexamination of both the initial conditions required for life and the processes that could lead to the emergence of complex biological systems
The authors introduce "co-origination," a concept suggesting that many complex biochemical processes necessary for life would need to occur simultaneously, in sync. This notion challenges the probability of life emerging solely through random interactions and gradual natural selection, emphasizing that, for life to begin, specific enzyme and coenzyme functions had to be present from the start. So the paper seems to suggest that life required an even more complex setting to start. For all those many complex biochemical processes necessary for life would need to occur simultaneously, in sync it would be necessary a even higher game of chance. It may open more space for creationists to suggest an intelligent design. For me, as a bioinformatician, it does not prove God, just that life is so rare and fragile, and so unlikely to repeat itself elsewhere. Jorge Guerra Pires, Ph.D.
You raise an important point that reflects the implications of the authors' argument regarding co-origination. The concept does suggest that the emergence of life requires a highly complex set of biochemical processes that must coincide, thus increasing the improbability of spontaneous life emerging through random interactions alone. This perspective indeed raises critical questions and has potential consequences for various viewpoints, including those advocating for intelligent design.
The Implications of Co-origination:
1. Complexity and Probability: The authors posit that for even the simplest forms of life to exist initially, multiple essential functions must be in place at the same time (i.e., certain enzymes and coenzymes), which they argue presents a significant hurdle for the naturalistic explanations of life's origins. This leads to the conclusion that life's emergence through gradual processes, as proposed by evolutionary theory, is statistically unlikely.
2. Interpretation and Use by Different Philosophical Views: As you mentioned, this notion could indeed provide ammunition for creationist arguments or proponents of intelligent design, who may interpret the finding as indicative of a guiding force or an orchestrated event. However, it is important to note that while the paper presents a challenge to naturalistic explanations, it does not conclusively advocate for any particular worldview, including the existence of a deity.
3. Area of Study for Bioinformatics: From a bioinformatician's standpoint, your observation about the fragility and rarity of life is well taken. Even if life is statistically improbable, it may still exist under a very limited set of conditions. The implications of complexity and chance in biochemical networks might suggest that while life could be rare, the conditions that allow it to manifest could be explored in both Earth-like and extraterrestrial environments.
Conclusion: Ultimately, the paper provokes thought about the origins of life and the complexity involved, but it does not provide definitive evidence for or against intelligent design or the existence of a higher power. Instead, it emphasizes the need for continued research and discussion surrounding the mechanisms of life's origins, which remain a significant area of scientific inquiry. Your perspective as a bioinformatician contributes to a broader understanding of these intricate issues.
I don’t understand how you can say. Darwin was correct, but that evolution is dead in the water? These statements are contradictory.
The paper argues that while some principles of Darwinian evolution, particularly the idea of natural selection (often summarized as "survival of the fittest"), are recognized and valid in the context of biological adaptation and change over time, they fall short in accounting for the origins of life.
Clarification of These Statements:
1. Darwin's Correctness: The authors acknowledge that Darwin's theory provides a framework for understanding how species evolve through natural selection once life has already begun. Adaptations, speciation, and evolution in response to environmental pressures are well-supported.
2. Evolution "Dead in the Water": However, the paper contends that the mechanisms outlined by Darwin, particularly natural selection, do not adequately explain how the very first forms of life originated—essentially the transition from non-life to life (abiogenesis). They highlight that the simultaneous emergence of essential enzymes and their corresponding coenzymes (like vitamins acting as coenzymes) is statistically improbable without an alternative mechanism guiding that process.
Conclusion: The contradiction arises from a distinction between "evolution" as it pertains to changes in existing life forms, which Darwin described, and the origin of life itself, which the authors contend remains unexplained under current evolutionary frameworks. Thus, they argue that while Darwin's observations about species adaptation are valid, the application of those principles to the origin of life presents insurmountable challenges as per their analysis.
Evolution is a fact. There has been ample evidence gathered since Darwin and all supoorts evolution. It doesn't matter what your opinion is.
"Evolution is a fact." nope, it is based on fact. It means that evolution can be replaced. The theories of Newton were based on fact, but replaced by Einstein
"I think the only way biological evolution would be "dead in the water" is when someone presents a superior explanation for speciation and genetic diversity in the world."
The paper is not challenging that, it is providing a possible better explanation for how life started. It is similar to want to use the Big Bang theory on the beginning of the universe. We know the Big Bang theory is about how the universe is expanding, now about how it started.
I think we are all fully aware that this distinction exists and also that hoping to solve the abiogenesis problem might be beyond us. It doesn’t much matter - the entire situation can not be resolved with certainty by any “side” and that doesn’t stop us from continuing to investigate the physical world. On the whole it is better if we separate science research from “religion” and assume they are different ways of viewing the world.
Comments collected. They are from Facebook. Chances are no one read the paper. If the authors happen to read this, welcome to the internet. I have done two open-review publication, this is what you will most likely receive.
This was published in a creationist journal, not a science journal, and is rubbish
the journal is indexed in Pubmed. A look at recent contents gives me a bad vibe, and I have been looking at scientific biology journals for 50 years. The articles do not seem to be presenting normal "leading edge" topics. The article bit shown here has a number of red flags that would certainly have caused its rejection. I would like to read more of it, but my conclusion is that it is fraud.
"The paper is nonsense. No one thinks abiogenesis proceeded in that manner."
This is creationists new tactic. Make the journal sound legit to sneak it into goggle scholar.
Independent Researcher and writer at Amazon.
Know more: https://linktr.ee/jorgeguerrapiresphd
About Jorge Guerra Pires
Jorge Guerra Pires has been writing and teaching biological systems modeling for beginners since his Ph.D. During his doctoral studies, he launched local courses at the University of L’Aquila, where he completed both his master's and Ph.D. Since then, he has maintained a YouTube channel, blogs, and other forms of knowledge dissemination and discussion, with a strong online focus.
Jorge Guerra Pires is passionate about biology, mathematics, programming, and anything that challenges his intellect. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of L’Aquila/Italy, recognized in Brazil by the University of São Paulo (USP) in bioinformatics. He has completed two post-doctorates, one at the Federal University of Bahia (UFBA) and the other at the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz). Additionally, he earned a dual master's degree from the University of L’Aquila and the Technical University of Gdansk/Poland. His undergraduate degree is in Production Engineering from the Federal University of Ouro Preto.
Comments