Robot Wars (Is evolutionary theory built on chance?)

[Gman]

Another Robot War. This one involves the topic of chance and how it is reflected in evolutionary theory. This is actually a hot topic that not too many people write about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqia0rBOO5M

[Gabrielman]

That was funny!!! LOL, his legs got rusted cause his master!!!! I guess it is hard for some to realize how much of an impossiblity life on earth really is or life in general really is. Good job once more Gman!!!

[godslanguage]

Great job Gman.

Keep'em coming, enjoying them as well as the ignorant comments they recieve from the chance worshippers.

[Gabrielman]

Just read the comments on the youtube channel. LOL, they can't even come up with a point against it, they just complain. I should make a youtube account... lol what I would say... lol!!! Great job Gman, maybe you should make it easier for them to understand!!!!

[derwood]

Another Robot War. This one involves the topic of chance and how it is reflected in evolutionary theory. This is actually a hot topic that not too many people write about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqia0rBOO5M

Pretty silly, all in all. I could only stomach about 2 minutes.

"Something had to start it" in response to evolution is not just a random process...

The pathetic thing is, I'll bet YECs thing that is quite clever.

Amazing.

[cslewislover]

We're not YEC here.

[Gabrielman]

Another Robot War. This one involves the topic of chance and how it is reflected in evolutionary theory. This is actually a hot topic that not too many people write about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqia0rBOO5M

Pretty silly, all in all. I could only stomach about 2 minutes.

"Something had to start it" in response to evolution is not just a random process...

The pathetic thing is, I'll bet YECs thing that is quite clever.

Amazing.

Really? I am an OEC I believe that the universe is billions of years old. I enjoyed the show, and you didn't give an answer. So how did a bunch of atoms (protons nuetrons, and electrons) come to life, begin to self actualized, and type this to you? I believe in God and science. Learn about the different types of believers, we are not all the same, and we are not all YECs. Looking forward to having a constructive disscussion on this, let's see if that will happen....

[touchingcloth]

Gman -
Just a quick bit of (constructive, I hope) criticism.
There's a bit in the video where the pro-creation robot states that natural selection could not work on non-living things - this is untrue.

As a thought, how would you feel about creating a script for one of these videos together some time? You could choose a topic and produce an outline and I could refine the 'opposing' point of view...

[Gman]

Gman -
Just a quick bit of (constructive, I hope) criticism.
There's a bit in the video where the pro-creation robot states that natural selection could not work on non-living things - this is untrue.

Natural selection only works on biological structures that are already in existence. It's simply sorts matter. The question here with abiogenesis is starting with non-living matter. So how is natural selection going to get the ball to start rolling here? By it's definition it can't. And no one has the real answer for abiogenesis. That is really what I'm referring to in the script. Although it could be defined better perhaps..

As a thought, how would you feel about creating a script for one of these videos together some time? You could choose a topic and produce an outline and I could refine the 'opposing' point of view...

Possibly that might work. A lot of the script, however, is taken directly from the debates here on this forum. Even direct quotes from talkorigins.

[zoegirl]

The models for abiogenesis show a "selection" for those RNA molecules and those proteins that work. The ones that replicate faster or replicate more are the ones that are "selected". It's not the same as selection in the sense that they are alive or fit an environment, but rather they produce more RNA molecules or as a protein they work and as such are selected more than other RNA molecules.

Abiogenesis is still very unsatisfactory, but that is the model (at least a snippet of it)

[Gman]

I don't believe there are any RNA molecules or proteins in non-living chemicals. I'm simply starting from scratch here.. I believe that is what abiogenesis or the chemical origin of life teaches. If so, there is no natural selection to get the process going.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... Ei0ziP070p

[zoegirl]

You're absolutely right, but the model includes different stages. The stage that you are referring to is classic Miller Urey experiment that is solely concerned with the formation of organic molecules from inorganic.

Stage 2 attempts to explain the development of the organic polymers, that was what I was referring to.

Stage 1A — PreBiotic Chemistry (Miller-Urey and more)
Modern studies of prebiotic (pre-biological) biochemistry — to form organic molecules and biomolecules in Stages 1A and 1B — began in 1953 with the Miller-Urey Experiment. Early MU experiments used a reducing atmosphere with reactive chemicals (CH4, H2, and NH3) plus H2O. Within two decades, most geologists thought the early earth had a non-reducing neutral atmosphere (mainly CO2 and N2 plus H2O) that was much less reactive; when these chemicals were used in later variations of MU the yields of organic molecules were much lower. But geological questions about earth's early atmosphere continued through the 1990s, and in 2005 calculations about gas from chordites indicated that the atmosphere might have been reducing, similar to the early MUs. Currently the chemistry of the early atmosphere is in doubt, as described in Wikipedia.
There have been questions about other aspects of Miller-Urey experiments, such as the choice of energy sources and why newly formed products were isolated (before they could be broken down by further reactions), to ask whether the MUs were realistic simulations of conditions on the early earth.
In response to these questions and their own, researchers studied a wide variety of Miller-Urey variations, using different reactant mixtures, energy sources, and conditions, and in the reaction products they observed a variety of organic compounds, in amounts that spanned a wide range but usually were fairly low.
In addition, scientists discovered that objects from outer space (meteors, comets,…) contain interesting organic compounds, plus H2O, and these compounds would have become "part of the reaction mixture" when the space-objects landed on earth.

• On the 50th anniversary of the Miller-Urey publication, a report from Astrobiology Magazine.
• For an overview of current views on the early atmosphere, read the section on "Conditions for Synthesis of Organic Molecules on the Early Earth" in the page by Moritz.
• Talk Origins has brief responses about the early atmosphere: A & B.
• Jeffrey Bada ran a recent variation of Miller-Urey that produces more amino acids, but not nucleic acid bases.


Stage 1B — Polymer Chemistry (to make proteins, RNA,…)
The Miller-Urey experiments are about stage 1A, forming small organic molecules.
In 1B, problems occur due to energetics — because in water the reactions to form larger biomolecules (proteins, RNA, and DNA) are energetically unfavorable — and also due to competition.
For example, during protein synthesis a prebiotic reaction mixture would contain many different chemicals (L-amino acids and R-amino acids, plus many other molecules) and the majority of newly formed bonds would not be the special peptide bonds (linking only L-amino acids) found in natural proteins. The scarcity of L-peptide bonds is partly due to the fact that in a watery "soup" the formation of these bonds is energetically unfavorable. Therefore, abiogenesis researchers have searched for and studied non-aqueous reaction sites, such as evaporated ponds or on the surface of minerals.
Similar difficulties would arise in the prebiotic formation of other important biomolecules. Problems occur in both stages of forming RNA, in forming ribose sugars and some nuclotide bases (in 1A) and connecting these together (in 1B). The prebiotic synthesis of RNA has been especially unsuccessful, but perhaps special environments (such as the surface of minerals) could help with the reactions.

• In the "General Considerations" section of From Building Blocks to the Polymers of Life says, "the formation of either proteins or RNA from their monomers is not energetically favored… [so]… in the presence of water… energy input was necessary to have made RNA and polypeptides on primitive Earth." { Later, there is more about synthesis problems in an RNA World. }
• For possible solutions to another problem, click the link for "Origin of the Homochirality of Amino Acids & Sugars" in Moritz and read about a crystal with 10% separation of L & D amino acids.


Stages 2A & 2B — Chemical Evolution into the First Life
Most scientists think the most challenging problems for abiogenesis by chemical evolution are biological, in Stages 2A and 2B, because "The simplest possible 'living system' seems to require hundreds of components interacting in an organized way to achieve self-replication and energy production, and this organized complexity would have to occur before natural selection (which depends on self-replication) was available."
What is life? Michael Pidwirny summarizes the answer given by Daniel Koshland in The Seven Pillars of Life. But which of these would have been necessary (or useful) during each part of a natural chemical evolution through stages 2A (semi-alive?) and 2B into being fully alive? Asking "why is it difficult to define life?" draws responses, brief (Joel Achenbach) and in detail (Carol Cleland & Christopher Chyba).
What is the minimal complexity required for life? At the end of his Introduction, Moritz summarizes current ideas: "The most elementary [non-parasitic] cells we currently know… have 482 protein-coding genes (most bacteria, such as E. coli, encode for more than 2000 different proteins)" plus some non-protein molecules; of these, "according to the probably best experimental study to date (abstract & full text) the essential ones are 387" and "the likely most accurate hypothetical study (abstract & full text) puts the minimal number of genes at 206. All the proteins produced from these genes are involved in a maze of pathways of metabolism, replication, as well as building and maintenance of structure, which is of bewildering complexity."

Gene-First or Metabolism-First?
Scientists currently have two theories about the first functionality in the development toward life; was it genes-first or metabolism-first or some of each? {some possibilities} But with either type of scenario, at some point in its journey toward becoming a living cell it would need to construct a membrane to separate itself from the external environment. But, as Richard Deem, explains, there are problems with a prebiotic synthesis of cell membranes.
• Leslie Orgel discusses gene-first & metabolism-first theories for a "chemical evolution" origin of life.

Genes-First in an RNA World
To avoid the need for a complex system of proteins plus DNA (with hundreds of proteins required for life) some scientists have proposed that RNA — which combines the replicating ability of DNA and catalytic activity of proteins — was the key life-producing molecule in the earliest living cells.
This common proposal is described in many pages in other sections, and is the main focus of these pages:
• Leslie Orgel (1997) proposes a prebiotic RNA World in The Origin of Life on Earth.
• What can RNA do? Jack Szostak is exploring the possibilities, in an attempt to produce RNA-life in the lab.
• Richard Deem looks at problems (synthesis,…) of an RNA World and so do others, including Robert Shapiro and Gordon Mills & Dean Kenyon.
• Recently, scientists determined the 3-D structure of a ribozyme (an RNA enzyme).

Metabolism-First with Chemical Reactions
Some scientists think life was an emergent property that happened, either gradually or suddenly, due to interactions between chemicals in a complex system. A "metabolism first" view is an approach, not a specific theory, and various advocates propose different chemical mixtures and reaction locales:
• An origin of life beginning with small-molecule interactions is described by Robert Shapiro, briefly and (after criticizing RNA World) in more detail.
• Loren Haarsma & Terry Gray briefly outline the basic ideas of abiogenesis in an autocatalytic system.
• Moritz writes a lot about metabolism-first, from "Specificity of Chemical Reactions" onward.
• One possibility, among many, is a hypercycle.
• Bruce Weber has an outline of ideas about life arising from interactions in complex systems.
• Christian De Duve, in 1995, compares an RNA World and Thioester World.
• Michael Russell & Allan Hall look at possibilities in warm underwater springs.
• James Ferry & Christopher House study microbes that metabolize carbon monoxide and they propose a way to reconcile heterotrophic and autotrophic theories for the origin of life.
• a book review of Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins (by Robert Hazen) about emergent cycles and ocean vents, minerals and more.
• In the late-1980s, Graham Cairns-Smith proposed that life began as "clay organisms" that transformed into DNA-based life, but this idea is not currently popular or influential. A website about the role of Clays & Crystals in the Origin of Life includes articles, links, and criticisms; another critique is from Charles Thaxton & Stephen Meyer.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/cheme.htm

[Gman]

You're absolutely right, but the model includes different stages. The stage that you are referring to is classic Miller Urey experiment that is solely concerned with the formation of organic molecules from inorganic.

Stage 2 attempts to explain the development of the organic polymers, that was what I was referring to.

Yes, but before we go to stage 2, we need to get stage 1 down first. So we really can't progress.. Regardless even the Miller Urey experiment was based on chance (with the help of some ID of course)... That's all I'm really saying here.

[zoegirl]

Absolutely,

I agree with you Gman.

The original point was concerning the usage of the word selection on organic chemicals. I was just describing how the word is applied to the model.

[Gman]

Absolutely,

I agree with you Gman.

The original point was concerning the usage of the word selection on organic chemicals. I was just describing how the word is applied to the model.

Ok, got ya.. Thanks.