[NatTheo] The Plain Man's Argument from Design

Charles J. Shebbeare

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

The Plain Man's Argument from Design
Charles J. Shebbeare

Of the various arguments devised in past times to prove the existence of God -- and incidentally to refute a Naturalism like Mr. Russell's -- the clearest and simplest is the familiar "Argument from Design."

This argument points to certain facts of Nature which look like evidences of design or arrangement; and draws the conclusion that the world is so like a plan that it must really be one; that is, that it resembles a work of intelligence in too many respects for this resemblance to be accidental.

At the present moment the Argument from Design is out of favour: partly because it is supposed to have been demolished by Darwin; partly because it seems to ignore the sufferings, the inequalities, the injustices of life, to which the modern mind is so peculiarly sensitive. If a wise God designed those elements in the world which are pleasant and profitable, what explanation are we to give of the evil and the pain ?

In some quarters, however, this argument still holds its own: nor is its influence confined to ignorant men unacquainted with Darwin, nor to simple souls who know nothing of the ills of life. Yet it has never in modern times been the special argument of the philosophic thinker. In contrast with other arguments preferred by the learned, the Argument from Design has been called the "argument of the plain man." Employed mostly by men versed in the hard facts of life rather than in philosophic systems, it is often seen in its most impressive shape when stated in the most informal manner.

Take, for example, the well-known question of Napoleon and the comment made upon it by Carlyle, "During Napoleon's voyage to Egypt" -- says Carlyle on the authority of Bourrienne -- "his savans were one evening busily occupied arguing that there could be no God. They had proved it, to their satisfaction, by all manner of logic. Napoleon, looking up into the stars, answers, 'Very ingenious, messieurs; but who made all that?' The atheistic logic runs off him like water; the great fact stares him in the face : 'Who made all that?' "

In all such popular arguments we have to distinguish what is said from what is meant. If we ask, "Who made the world?" the unbeliever may readily answer, "Why should it have been made by any one? How can you prove that nothing can exist which is not the work of a conscious being?" But such an answer implies a misunderstanding of the issue. The force of Napoleon's argument depends, not upon the fact that there exists a world of some kind, but simply and solely upon its character. Had he found himself confronted with a world of Chaos, instead of a world of Order, his question would never have been asked.

The mind of the man of action contemplating the works of Nature is impressed always by the "orderliness" which they exhibit. In some languages, as is well known, a word signifying the "Order" -- Cosmos, Mundus, Monde -- is the very name by which the world is called. The word "Order," it must be admitted, is often somewhat vaguely employed -- sometimes to signify a wise and well-considered arrangement, sometimes to signify mere arrangement as such without deciding whether it is good or evil. But to the plain man Order in either sense suggests intelligence. Even the uniformities and similarities which are recorded by Physical Science seem to him to call for some explanation such as a purely physical theory cannot offer. Napoleon's question indicates that he sees in the world the same sort of qualities which we should regard as the results of intelligence if we found them in the work of man; the qualities which distinguish the work of an adult from the work of a child, the work of a sane man from that of a lunatic, the work of an artist from that of a mere craftsman.

In human work -- in a Gothic Cathedral and equally in a steam-engine -- the idea of the Whole comes first and the parts are subsequent. It is with reference to the idea of the Whole that the parts are formed or selected. In the machine the parts come together as means to a common end. In a work of art every feature is an end in itself, and exists for the sake of its own beauty. But the various features are still parts of a Whole and co-operate to produce the general "effect" under the influence of a governing conception. Even in simple cases, as when plants or stones are arranged in rows or circles, we recognize that an idea has come first. The position of each individual plant has been governed by a single principle which takes account of them all. Indeed the "government of separate objects by a single principle" is, in these cases, the very essence of what "order" or "arrangement" means.

Is the world, then, similar to human work in this respect? There is much to suggest that it is. I look around, and am aware that every blade of grass is going through a similar process of growth: that all the sheep on the hill-side are going through similar processes of nutrition: that in every ear of corn is being arranged in a similar complex structure. Yet these are not cases of direct mechanical contact; they are not like the case where a number of levers move in a similar manner because all are worked by a single crank. Each individual sheep is physically separate from the others. Whence then this unity of behaviour? Has not the student of Physical Science been too much disposed to take th e Uniformity of Nature for granted, as if because it is familiar it was therefore understood and explained, and need cause no further question? Has he not sometimes spoken as if by Natural Selection we could explain the uniform behaviour of organic bodies, while in truth he is compelled, like other people, to presuppose this uniform behaviour as the startingpoint of his explanations? The Uniformity of Nature is a sufficiently remarkable fact. To the plain man disposed towards religion uniformity is itself a religious argument. Whenever we see in articles of manufacture the same unity of character or behaviour as we find in natural objects, we know what to conclude; they have all been formed according to one rule or pattern; one principle has governed all the cases: and this implies the work of a governing or designing mind. And so, he argues, it is with the world; Nature goes by rules, and rules, he thinks, can only act through the agency of a mind which can grasp them. "The world," said a thoughtful artisan," is a System, and every System has its Master."

The plain man's argument, then, has two stages: first, he concludes that the world is governed by principles; secondly, that it is governed by a Conscious Mind.

These two stages should be kept distinct. At its second stage -- as must be frankly admitted -- the argument tries to move too fast. We have no right to jump to the conclusion that "government by a principle" is the same thing as "government by a mind." Thus it is not the aim of the present volume to defend the popular argument as it stands; but rather to show that the fundamental thought which it enshrines can be restated in a less questionable form. The chief criticisms directed against the Argument from Design are due to Kant and to Darwin. We must seek to rewrite it, bearing these criticisms in mind. Yet a brief discussion of the argument in its popular form is an excellent introduction to the whole subject, and will serve to familiarize us with ideas which are not too prominent in the thoughts of this generation.

The Argument from Design points, first, to the regularity of Nature, to the fact that everywhere Nature conforms itself to rules. It points, secondly, to the appearance of co-operation among the various parts of Nature, especially among the organs of organic bodies. Thirdly, it inquires whether it can be a mere accident that the physical processes of Nature are so admirable in their aesthetic effects, in the schemes of line and colour which they produce. Fourthly, it points to the fact that similar laws hold good in all parts of the known universe, and points to certain other facts likewise which suggest unity of system. The appeal of Carlyle is to the "great fact" which stares us in the face. That the world has a "Maker" is not an observed fact, but and inference. But the regularity, the mutual co-operation, the aesthetic harmony of Nature in its various parts, and in some sense also its unity, are facts which all schools of thought will admit. The question is how far recent discovery and recent thought -- and especially the doctrines of Darwin -- have robbed these facts of significance for religion. Men, as we saw, have found, or have fancied, that the world possesses those qualities which belong to the best kind of human work, the work of the grown man, the sane man, the competent artist. Before we reject the old argument as worthless, we must ask whether the world does possess these qualities or not; and, if we find that it does, we must then inquire whether our own theory of the world, whatever it be, takes this aspect of Nature sufficiently into account.

I. Take, one by one, the facts mentioned above. Take, first of all, regularity. Nature unquestionably conforms itself to rules. Is it also governed by them?

We saw that the question "Is a Naturalism like that of Mr. Russell true or false?" is not identical with the question whether there is or is not a Personal God. For the present moment, then -- instead of asking "Is the world governed by a Person?" or even "Are the principles which govern the world wise ones?" -- we will confine ourselves to the question which justly comes first, "Is the world governed by principles at all?"

There are those who totally deny it; who assert that the Laws of Nature, and all other general principles too, exist in the human mind only. These thinkers regard the outside world as a collection of isolated individual things -- bodies, molecules, atoms, or smaller units -- separate one from another in their own nature, while the bond which binds them together in our minds is a purely mental fact [1], an afterthought by which the mind compendiously sums up its experiences and observations. In the words of Democritus of old, nothing is "real" but "atoms" and "void"; and though we must not assume that his modern followers are at one in all respects either with him or with one another, we have still to reckon with the opinion (strongly and even obstinately held) that in Nature apart from man all is separateness and isolation; that the bond which binds the units together is mental, the creation of the human mind. It is, however, a pure mistake to suppose that this kind of "atomistic" doctrine gains any genuine support from modern discovery.

II. We come, secondly, to the co-operation of one natural object with others, especially the mutual co-operation of organs in plants and animals. Nature, as we have just seen, is subject to general laws. Are there any special laws which regulate co-operation? The parts of Nature do, as a fact, work together. Are there laws which order these helpful relations; or is this co-operation but the chance result of laws purely mechanical -- laws which do not prescribe co-operation as such ?

III. With regard to our third group of facts, those relating to beauty in Nature, the common argument is that Natural Beauty is a persistent and very remarkable fact which calls for an explanation such as Physical Science by itself cannot give; and therefore leads us on, either to the belief in a divine creative Artist, or at least to some theory in which the blind atoms and forces of Naturalism are not the last word in explanation.

Now, whatever we may think of this argument, there is no ground for saying that it has been made obsolete by Darwin. In certain cases, no doubt, Darwinism has valuable explanations to offer. The bright colours of male birds can be explained by sexual selection -- by the preferences shown generation after generation by the female for the brightly coloured partner. The bright colours of flowers can be explained by their power to attract the fertilizing insects.[2] But these and all similar explanations cover a very narrow field. If there is any one who still thinks that he can give a general explanation of aesthetic facts by evolutionary arguments of this simple sort, we may invite his attention to the colour-schemes of inanimate Nature -- to the Alpine snows, to the clouds at sunset or at dawn, to the wide prospects of rock and sand, of stream and sea. Here we have colour-schemes as delicate as in the colourings of flowers or birds; yet here there is no question of heredity, and therefore no place for this particular kind of evolutionary explanation.

Again, throughout Nature we have not merely beauty, but harmony; and here Darwin has no advantage whatever over the explanations which were open to Physical Science in pre-Darwinian days. To the eye of the painter the landscape is an assemblage of coloured points. We may explain by Chemistry the colour of each point taken separately. But neither Chemistry, nor Physics, nor Biology, nor all these sciences together, do anything to explain the delicate harmony of the whole. Why, again and again, do just those colours occur together which form a harmonious scheme? This is a question which Physical Science as such cannot answer. If it were true, as a Philistine might think, that any colours would look well together, if only there are enough of them and they are sufficiently bright and varied, then the harmoniousness of natural colour might seem to call for no special explanation. But, as every one with an eye for colour knows well, the laws of harmony in colour are at least as strict as the laws of harmony in music. The plain man, then, is right in thinking that some special explanation is wanted.

A more ingenious form of evolutionary theory seeks to explain, not the beauty of Nature itself, but human taste. It is suggested that we like the colour-schemes of Nature because these have been familiar to us and to our ancestors for generations [3]: or, again, that our aesthetic tastes are somehow to be accounted for by their utility in the struggle for existence. These theories, as we shall see below, break down utterly when they are confronted with the facts.

So, again, do all theories which deny the reality of Natural Beauty, and treat it as some illusion or creation of our own. There are those -- of whom Mr. Russell is one -- who speak of beauty as the product of our creative imagination. But are they quite in earnest? Do they consistently think that all those elements in the world which excite our admiration are read into Nature by us -- that there is nothing worthy of aesthetic admiration in the world as it stands ? The claim when so stated will be at once rejected. The creative imagination is powerful no doubt; but the suggestion that it alone produces beauty, and that Nature itself contributes nothing, is clearly absurd. If this were so, why should one thing be pronounced more beautiful than another ? If Mr. Russell, thirsting for beauty, is confined to his bedroom just as he is starting for Italy and the Alps, it will hardly console him to propose that he should stimulate his creative fancy by a contemplation of old files of the Times and an extensive view of bricks and mortar.

The fact is that Nature, as actually presented to our senses, conforms itself to aesthetic principles -- to the principles of delicacy, congruity, and harmony. It is for this very reason that the artist takes Nature for his model. If, then, we once perceive that the colour-schemes of Nature conform to these principles, we are driven to suppose either that the principles have in some way an influence upon Nature, or else that the conformity of natural scenes to these principles is a mere accident -- just as much a pure coincidence as if a picture were formed by pigments smeared in the dark upon an artist's palette, or a tune played by men blowing at random into organ-pipes lying in confusion in a builder's shed. When we think of the vast number of coloured points involved, we shall see that in the case of the landscape a coincidence of this kind is inconceivable.

The beauty of the landscape is due on any theory to physical particles and the manner in which they are disposed. Is there, then, any necessity that just those particles should exist, and just those very dispositions of them should always take place, which are fitted to produce a harmonious effect? If there is no such necessity, then it is a piece of pure good luck that the world possesses the beauty which, as a matter of fact, is found on every side. But Nature is beautiful so constantly that we seem forced to believe that it is in some sense under a necessity to be beautiful. If this is true, then it follows that Nature is in some sense governed by aesthetic as well as by purely physical principles.

IV. Our fourth heading involves but little difficulty. That there are facts which suggest that the world is a systematic Whole is shown by the almost universal influence which this con- ception possesses. Atheist, Agnostic, and Chris- tian alike assume that the world as a whole is based on some intelligible scheme, the character of which can be grasped, at least in outline, by the mind of man.

We see, then, the general tendency of the Argument from Design. It points to the orderly and systematic character of Nature, and especially to those respects in which Nature bears resemblance to a work of art. We have no right to assume that such regularity as we find in Nature is a matter of course; and if its regularity is not a matter of course, still less so is its harmony, its beauty, its general artistic appearance.

When, therefore, the supporters of Naturalism argue that the orderliness which makes such an impression upon the religious mind is after all but the result of that fixity of law which is the postulate of Physical Science, an effective answer lies ready to hand. "Even if you are entitled to take uniformity for granted, as something which needs no further explanation, still mere uniformity as such does nothing to explain beauty. A world might be marvellously uniform and yet not at all beautiful. Granted the existence of just those material particles which the world actually contains, and granted that they contain just those forces and properties which do actually belong to them, is there any special reason why just those particles, forces, and properties exist which produce a harmony of colour, not once or twice, not here or there, but in all the diverse landscapes which Nature exhibits?"

The believer's argument is not simply that "Naturalism is false because it cannot explain beauty." To such an argument there would be an easy retort: "Neither can you yourself give an explanation which is complete." The sound argument is that Naturalism, in denying that there is in Nature any tendency towards beauty and aesthetic harmony as such, is hereby treating the beauty of Nature as a mere accident; and this, we rightly feel, is utterly incredible.

If, on the other hand, there is in Nature a real tendency towards beauty, we have advanced at least one step towards the religious man's view of the world. The world is no longer utterly cold and purposeless. The laws and tendencies of matter are no longer wholly hostile or indifferent. That tendency towards beauty to which our argument points, is a very different thing from the conscious purpose of a personal God. Yet the plain man who identifies the two is not without excuse. The fact that the world is like a work of art does not prove that there is a conscious Creator, but it does suggest it. This resemblance is no chance resemblance, as when the glowing embers of the fire resemble faces, or the clouds resemble a camel or a whale; it is a matter of settled principle and constant law. To the unphilosophic mind, therefore -- if to no other -- the readiest explanation of the artistic character of the world is that it is in truth the plan of a Divine Architect.

The Argument from Design, then, even in its least systematic shape, seems worthy of some respect.

[1] You are rightly wondering if the author is kidding about the existence of philosophers who think this way. He's not. David Hume is an example. ECO.

[2] Shebbeare is being too charitable to Darwin here. The theory of sexual selection and the aesthetic preferences of birds and insects has been demolished in many ways by many authors. See, for example, Thomas Hunt Morgan's Evolution and Adaptation. ECO

[3] These kind of Darwinian explanations (you think bananas are tasty because your ape forefathers thought they were tasty) remind me of the explanations offered by new-agers and believers in reincarnation. You married Jane because you married Jane in a previous life. You like watching fencing on TV because in a previous life you were a knight of the Round Table, etc. ECO

From chapters 3 and 4, The Challenge of the Universe (1918) by Rev. Charles J. Shebbeare
Condensed and edited by ECO.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

But Nature is beautiful so constantly that we seem forced to believe that it is in some sense under a necessity to be beautiful. If this is true, then it follows that Nature is in some sense governed by aesthetic as well as by purely physical principles.

Shebbeare spends little time on biomechanical contrivances and biological adaptations: he pulls out the heavy metaphysical guns right away: beauty in nature. This approach to the argument of Design is more in line with the continuity of history. It is different from Design arguments today, which focus more on biomechanical contrivances in nature, and less on primary principles like order, intelligibility, and beauty.

The sound argument is that Naturalism, in denying that there is in Nature any tendency towards beauty and aesthetic harmony as such, is hereby treating the beauty of Nature as a mere accident; and this, we rightly feel, is utterly incredible.

This comment by Shebbeare bears repeating, for it opens up productive possibilities for natural theology. One need not think of the argument of Design or natural theology as a body of argument intended to convince an atheist of something. Indeed, I believe that that attitude is not very productive. For it really takes an act of God to make an atheist see the light anyway.

But what natural theology can do is show you exactly what it is that an atheist is denying. Against the argument from Beauty, the response I have most often heard was a denial of beauty in nature. Either a denial of the meaning or validity of the concept, or a denial of its reality -- or an affirmation that it is an illusion, or that it only exists in our minds as an opinion. Likewise I have seen atheists deny, in one way or another, truth, knowledge, objective reality, morality, good, evil, beauty, design, purpose, meaning, intelligibility, causation, even their own existence. We can consider this a reductio ad absurdum of the atheist world-view. That is the real strength of natural theology.

To give you an example, here is a short debate between the atheist Bertrand Russell, and Fr. Frederick C. Copleston S.J. If we are expecting to see Russell admit to the existence of God we will be disappointed. But if we adopt the other view of natural theology, as an examination of atheistic denial and reductio ad absurum, it is indeed most interesting: Fr. Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Natural Theology Series
Natural Theology, Design, Teleology, and Metaphysics

---

Selections scavenged from the oblivion of old and forgotten books.
Condensed, arranged, and edited by ECO. Freepmail me if you
want on or off the Natural Theology Series ping list.

01 Argyll - Man as the Representative of the Supernatural
02 Gerard - The Voices of Babel

[Hebrews 11:6]

An excellent new resource is Dr. Fazale Rana's The Cell's Design (Baker Books, 2008). Rather than relying on "negative" proofs (i.e., because evolution is a inadequate explanation, therefore everything must be designed; this is discounted by evolutionists as a mere "God of the gaps" argument), biochemist Rana demonstrates ten positive proofs for biological design which science has revealed: "...the cell displays...a magnificent gallery of awe-inspiring characteristics signify[ing] a Master's brilliance at work."(p.19)

[valkyry1]

4th of July bump

[count-your-change]

I'd like to pose a question for any interested in responding as it deals with intelligent design or lack thereof. The question is this:
If I find a chipped stone how can I determine whether it is the result of deliberate action of an intelligent being or the result of last year's spring flood, mere chance?
Actually two questions: At what level of chipping done on the stone could I say with a certainty of mind that only an intelligent agent acting with deliberation could produce it?

[mrjesse]

I'd like to pose a question for any interested in responding as it deals with intelligent design or lack thereof. The question is this:

If I find a chipped stone how can I determine whether it is the result of deliberate action of an intelligent being or the result of last year's spring flood, mere chance?

Actually two questions: At what level of chipping done on the stone could I say with a certainty of mind that only an intelligent agent acting with deliberation could produce it?

First, it's probably not how chipped the stone is which is important, but how unlikely the pattern of chipping is.

For example, 8 chips in a perfect circle on a flat stone could be far better evidence of an intelligent chipper then a huge stone chipped away by a hundred million randomly executed chips.

So the two extremes (see picture above) are easy -- if it's purely random looking, then it probably was caused by natural process. If, on the other hand, it has features which are highly unlikely to have happened by random or natural process, then we'll really want to consider that it probably had a designer with a plan.

Now the dividing mark between intelligently designed and naturally chipped into shape can be a little tricky. And this is not because natural process is just one end of a continuum with intelligent chippers on the other end, but rather because obviously an intelligent chipper can observe then replicate a natural shape. And also because many times the artifacts we get are a joint project between two completely different forces - first an intelligent chipper then erosion. For example, the above rock could be either natural or man chipped, and it is sort of hard to tell. Furthermore, if it was man-chipped, but later had the tip broken off by natural process, it'd be even harder to tell. So for some things right on the border it is hard to tell whether they were natural or intelligently chipped.

But it is vital to remember two things: Just because something has some signs of random wear and tear it doesn't mean that it wasn't a design before that, and secondly, and most important:

The fact that some things are hard to tell whether they were natural or intelligently chipped does not invalidate those artifacts which are clearly intelligently chipped!

Some things in nature do naturally appear designed, like crystals of quartz and snowflakes, and marbles laying on the smooth ground. But you see these things are all in their most likely, lowest-energy, resting position. It may look like marbles all on a plane, evenly spaced (touching) is design, but it's just the way the marbles fall. Snowflakes certainly look designed, but they are in the order they are because, like the marbles, there is a certain way that frozen water molecules fit together more easily, so when they come to rest in their easiest position, they look pretty -- just like the honeycomb pattern that marbles give. Quarts crystals of course have their specific shape tendencies for the same reason snowflakes do theirs.

May I say to you that a living cell, which is far from its natural resting state, is an amazing evidence for intelligent design. Like the Petra stone carvings pictured above, the chances of all the parts of the first cell actually happening by chance are well proved to be unlikely by the constant and futile efforts to produce life in the lab. (I'm talking about real life, self replicating metabolizing life, with DNA.!) If it weren't so, the millions of canned foods on shelves would be springing forth in new heretofore non-existing life forms!

The reason that the cell is so unlikely is because it would require at least thousands of atoms and molecules all being arranged in a way which was not their natural or lowest energy resting state. As soon as a cell dies, all of its chemicals begin moving towards their natural resting state - in other words, the cell breaks down! I've actually watched a cell break down on my video microscope when it dies. (I shone UV lamp on it.) It was a cluster, and it instantly stopped moving and all the members of the colony just drifted away from each other.

Remember, the first cell would not only have to have the complexity of a machine that could replicate itself, but also the complex mechanism to feed itself! Being only able to replicate itself OR feed itself is no use!

Ladies and Gentlemen, we no longer believe that dirty rags spawn mice or rotting meat flies.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[count-your-change]

Thanks, I’ll be back soon.

[dr_lew]

The reason that the cell is so unlikely is because it would require at least thousands of atoms and molecules all being arranged in a way which was not their natural or lowest energy resting state.

This is a specious argument. No one should suggest that a primordial cell could have arisen from a system in thermal equilibrium (... let alone the "lowest energy resting state", which would correspond to absolute zero.)

A cell exists as a "dissipative structure". That is, the arrangement of its parts is maintained by the flow of energy through its chemical pathways.

The stable flow of solar and geothermal energy through terrestrial pathways is the presumed organizing principle leading to the emergence of primordial life. This principle is quite evidently in action on the surface of the sun, for example, where there are many emergent structures in evidence. Of course, such structures as these offer only an analogy to any proposed model of the emergence of primordial life, but there is no question of a bunch of molecules lying around in thermal equilibrium and just happening to form into cellular structures.

[mrjesse]

(... let alone the "lowest energy resting state", which would correspond to absolute zero.)

You're completely twisting my words and the idea I clearly described.

Remember the example of marbles setting on a flat are of ground, 1 layer thick. When I said lowest energy resting state I put flesh on it by describing it as marbles sitting on a flat surface - not as some absolute zero thing.

A cell exists as a "dissipative structure". That is, the arrangement of its parts is maintained by the flow of energy through its chemical pathways.

Absolutely - and the mechanisms which force the energy to take the "long way around" thereby doing work for the cell - this mechanism is built up of structures of molecules which are not in the formation that they naturally arrange themselves. It is truly a bootstrap process!

Of course, such structures as these offer only an analogy to any proposed model of the emergence of primordial life,

Remember, an analogy does not prove a thing - it is only a learning aid tool, and it is only useful to the degree that it is accurate.

but there is no question of a bunch of molecules lying around in thermal equilibrium and just happening to form into cellular structures.

Are you saying that you believe that if you mix up a bunch of molecules (which are not self-replicating metabolizing) you'll get a self-replicating and metabolizing living cell...?

Show me! I say that takes a lot of faith and didn't happen.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[dr_lew]

Remember the example of marbles setting on a flat are of ground, 1 layer thick. When I said lowest energy resting state I put flesh on it by describing it as marbles sitting on a flat surface - not as some absolute zero thing.

This is exactly the absolute zero thing! Molecules at room temperature are analogous to marbles in a violently vibrating box, and kept in equally violent motion by the vibration.

Are you saying that you believe that if you mix up a bunch of molecules (which are not self-replicating metabolizing) you'll get a self-replicating and metabolizing living cell...?

Paper in white the floor of the room, and rule it off in one-foot squares. Down on one's hands and knees, write in the first square a set of equations conceived as able to govern the physics of the universe. Think more overnight. Next day put a better set of equations into square two. Invite one's most respected colleagues to contribute to other squares. At the end of these labors, one has worked oneself out into the doorway. Stand up, look back on all those equations, some perhaps more hopeful than others, raise one's finger commandingly, and give the order "Fly!" Not one of those equations will put on wings, take off, or fly. Yet the universe "flies". - John A. Wheeler

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Sun]

Great pix.

Talk about a picture being worth a thousand words.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[mrjesse]

Paper in white the floor of the room, and rule it off in one-foot squares. Down on one's hands and knees, write in the first square a set of equations conceived as able to govern the physics of the universe. Think more overnight. Next day put a better set of equations into square two. Invite one's most respected colleagues to contribute to other squares. At the end of these labors, one has worked oneself out into the doorway. Stand up, look back on all those equations, some perhaps more hopeful than others, raise one's finger commandingly, and give the order "Fly!" Not one of those equations will put on wings, take off, or fly. Yet the universe "flies". - John A. Wheeler

Like my grandpa could have but probably didn't say, if a man can't make his own point he probably doesn't have one!

But from what I gather, you're implying something along the lines of "Cells are obviously here and since the only way they could have come to exist is if they sprang to life from randomly mixed inorganic soup, and so therefore that is how it happened..?" I Taut' so, I Taut' so...!

-Jesse

[dr_lew]

Like my grandpa could have but probably didn't say, if a man can't make his own point he probably doesn't have one!

"Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra."

But from what I gather, you're implying something along the lines of "Cells are obviously here and since the only way they could have come to exist is if they sprang to life from randomly mixed inorganic soup, and so therefore that is how it happened..?" I Taut' so, I Taut' so...!

Actually, I thought the quote was somewhat conciliatory, as it concedes that the universe holds ineffable mysteries still impenetrable to science. However, I will hold fast to the idea that there is no scientific argument for the impossibility of the spontaneous origin of life, and furthermore, that the history of scientific discovery has done nothing but offer encouragement to the idea, as the conditions of life as we see it fit so extremely well with such an origin.

On the other side of the coin, I am always bemused by the idea of a Designer God, or as a recent poster put it, God the Great Engineer. Here we are asked to impute specifically human endeavors to God, as if man were not made in the image of God, but God is rather a man carried to some kind of fever pitch. It strikes me as almost comical. And, it is entirely unbiblical! In Genesis, God speaks and commands. There is no mention of designing, and no one ever seems to venture any sort of guess about what sort of activity might be implied by the term. As a result, the doctrines of Creationism and Intelligent Design seem to amount to nothing more than a demand for pious silence on the subject.

[mrjesse]

This is exactly the absolute zero thing! Molecules at room temperature are analogous to marbles in a violently vibrating box, and kept in equally violent motion by the vibration.

You're still not understanding the concept I'm describing. Maybe I didn't use the right word. Maybe you can tell me the correct word that will make you happy. But the concept I'm trying to convey is the concept that certain types of atoms and molecules "prefer" to arrange themselves in certain patterns more then any other, under certain circumstances. For example, hydrogen and chlorine in a chamber together have a potential energy available, and above a certain temp, they will combine. Hydrogen and carbon, for example, do not have nearly the attraction. They can be forced together under various conditions, but they are not always stable. Acetylene for example if heated too much even in the absence of oxygen will actually decompose violently into atomic carbon and hydrogen gas. My point is that some atomic or molecular arangements happen easily and release energy, and others do not happen easily and require energy.

That is what I meant by marbles sitting on a smooth plot of ground or water molecules forming ice flakes - the reason the atoms line up the way they do is because that takes the least amount of energy, or because that's the pattern that has the strongest affinity to form -- just like marbles settling one layer deep resting on a flat surface.

If I were to see 3 marbles perched up on top on eachother I'd stop and say "Wait a second. That's not the natural most likely state."

My point is that some things, like snowflakes or quarts crystals look ordered or designed but that's just because that's the most favorable way for the atoms and molecules to fit together in those cases.

And I'm saying that for a single living metabolizing reproducing sell to spring into existence, about a gazillion marbles will need to be stacked up in the most unlikely way.

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

I will hold fast to the idea that there is no scientific argument for the impossibility of the spontaneous origin of life, and furthermore, that the history of scientific discovery has done nothing but offer encouragement to the idea, as the conditions of life as we see it fit so extremely well with such an origin.

Well then I will hold fast to the idea that there is no scientific argument for the impossibility of special creation by God himself. And furthermore, that the history of science has tried extensively to prove that life came from nonlife by natural process and has failed, and that eventually science will progress to the point where scientists will indeed be able to make life in the lab by building it atom by atom with really fine tweezers only to realize that all they've proved is that life has been designed in their test tube! [grin]

But seriously, have you done the calculations of how many combonations of molecule orders would need to be tried in order to get the first metabolizing reproducing cell? If a cell only had 100,000 base pairs, wouldn't that be about (roughly) 1 followed by about 60,000 zeros, or 10*10^60000?

Well lets see how many seconds there are in a trillion years:

3.1536*10^19. Okay, so doesn't that mean that in order to try all the possible combinations of those 100,000 base pairs in 1 trillion years, we'll need to try about 10*10^59984 different combinations per second?

Well, so maybe there was different there were multiple sets of these little trial and error processes going on at the same time. How many could there have been? Well, if we take the number of atoms of the earth to be 1.33*10^50, then the experiment can be going on in parallel 1.33*10^45 times. So now each of these experiments only needs to be happening 10*10^59939 times per second.

Okay, just to be generous, let's say that there are say about a trillion possible DNA sequences that will produce a living reproducing cell. Furthermore, let's assume that statistically speaking, for any given working cell code, it will be found in 10% of the tries it would take to try every combination. Let's also assume that no non-working combination is ever tried a second time, thus wasting time.

Now the number of experiments that would need to be tried every second in order to get a single living reproducing cell in a trillion years is much better: We have a trillion times 10 times 2 better chance due to these generous assumptions. That's 20*10^12 better chance, so now we only need about 10*10^59927 experiments per second.

In other words, every bit of matter in the world consists of adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine, and every single second for a trillion years, every group of 100,000 molecules are going through 10*10^59927 tests per second.

That's a pretty big number. That's higher a number then all the atoms in the earth. As a matter of fact, it's a higher number then all the atoms in the entire universe many times over - and I don't mean just slightly higher, I mean unimaginatively higher! There aren't words to pronounce numbers this big. Well, you could say "ten trillion trillion trillion.." but you'd have to say "trillion" 4994 times - which at 2 times a second would only take you about 42 minutes.

Those little molecules are going to be moving faster then the speed of light!

Anyway, these are just very rough calculations to illustrate the concept of statistical likelihood that a living cell did actually spring to life by natural means.

So my question is this - have you done that math (hopefully more carefully then I) and come to the conclusion that "Yes, this is actually workable?"

Or am I confused about something? Where did I got wrong? How did you do the math? I'm no genius to be sure but I try my best and always try to learn.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[UndauntedR]

I don't claim to speak for dr_lew, but you seem interested, inquisitive, and honest enough... so I'll give it a shot.

Are you saying that you believe that if you mix up a bunch of molecules (which are not self-replicating metabolizing) you'll get a self-replicating and metabolizing living cell...? Show me!

There exist a number of models for abiogenesis. Harvard recently launched a new Origin of Life program to continue and promote the field of research. One of the labs which will be leading this initiative is likely the Szostak Lab, which has done lots of very nice research on protocells. They integrate with other labs in a nice public, interactive front-end. Anyway, that's a nice slice of where you can get the current state-of-the-art on origins research. As I said, this research promotes a number of possible models for the origin of life which continue to be tested and refined. I wanted to introduce you to my favorite.

As you mentioned, any theory of the origin of life must include self-replication and metabolism. I think it's a little more subtle than that:

Self-replication: This isn't restricted to centriole-driven cytokinesis as you seem to imply in your later "It's very complicated" Demskiism post. Lots of things self-replicate. It's not very difficult to do. Anything that can grow and spread is effectively self-replicating, though we would not call it alive. Fire and crystals are good examples. Both grow and "reproduce" just like things that are alive, but we still don't call them alive. So, we need more.

Metabolism: This also isn't dependent on a certain form - like one that is dependent on the Kreb cycle, ATP-synthase, or any complex molecule. Any mechanism that is available to do work for the cell is a good candidate for the first "metabolism". The most common, and probably the simplest, driver of work is heat. From the sun, from geothermal vents, etc. Heat creates lots of interesting processes that could drive the first cell - pressure gradients and fluid flows, chemical gradients and osmotic pressures, organic chemicals and alternate chemistries, etc.

A good starting point for almost all theories of the origin of life has been the fatty acid micell or liposome - a self organizing layer of molecules which form a cellwall-like barrier and can capture large molecules inside them (that's how soap works). Fatty acids are produced naturally and can grow, fuse, and divide. Here's a good study which looks at these properties in the context of a protocell model. And here's a page with videos and simple explanations.

But no one would call this life, we still need some sort of self-replicating molecule. There's a number of candidates... many types of nucleotides and this is where most of the current research is. We're looking for the best candidates to self-polymerize or autocatalyze. The best candidate is simple RNA, which can catalyze its own template polymerization. Once polymers are formed on the inside of a micell (either be captured there or formed there) they become trapped, unlike the individual nucleotides. Template based polymerization can copy the strand without the use of proteins. If the "cell" is heat cycled (like in a geothermal vent, ocean current, etc) the polymers can separate and repeat the process. At this point, there's a competition for nucleotide bases. The favored protocells are the ones with polymers that have the right concentrations of nucleotides, replicate the fastest, explore polymer enzymatic activities, etc. We called this the "Bubble Wars" in my graduate classes.

I was delighted when I saw this video made for the YouTube crevo debates which explains mostly the same thing. That user is very well versed and has some very good videos I recommend checking out. There's plenty of others in the related videos section too.

So, we have a model for the first self-replicating protocell built from simple and naturally occurring substances, driven by thermodynamic processes to compete for resources.

Hope that's some food for thought.

[UndauntedR]

Whoops, crossed my links.

The YouTube video I posted is good, but but this is the one I meant to point to.

[Fichori]

"There exist a number of models for abiogenesis. Harvard recently launched a new Origin of Life program to continue and promote the field of research. One of the labs which will be leading this initiative is likely the Szostak Lab, which has done lots of very nice research on protocells. They integrate with other labs in a nice public, interactive front-end. Anyway, that's a nice slice of where you can get the current state-of-the-art on origins research. As I said, this research promotes a number of possible models for the origin of life which continue to be tested and refined. I wanted to introduce you to my favorite." [excerpt]

If those scientists are successful in creating abiogenesis, the only thing it will prove is that billions of years ago there were highly educated scientists in expensive laboratories who assembled the first cells.

So lets get right to the point: where did the scientists come from?