From: mark@austin.ibm.com (Mark Einkauf)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Biogenesis (+ an invitation to C. Menem)
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:56:45 GMT
Organization: IBM Austin
Originator: mark@einkauf.austin.ibm.com


  (the invitation to Mr. Menem is near the end of this post)

  I have followed talk.origins for about two months.  There  is much heated
  debate on the fossil record, the  flood, macroevolution,  dinosaurs, etc.
  These are all valid  topics.  However,  I'm amazed  that no  one seems to
  question what is surely the very foundation  of the  evolutionary theory.
  The theory (as I understand it) claims  that not  only the specialization
  of life (i.e.  species) can be explained by purely natural  forces acting
  through time, but that the very genesis of life  occurred through natural
  forces acting randomly on inorganic matter over time.  I find  this claim
  that  evolution   explains  biogenesis   to  be   preposterous,   and  in
  disagreement with scientific evidence.  I don't know why  no one  in this
  group has questioned this, for this  is surely  the Achilles  Heel of the
  theory.

  The fact that biogenesis cannot occur  "naturally" is  a scientific fact,
  and also,   I think,   self-evident.  It   is silly   to think   that the
  complexity of our bodies  is the  result of  random forces.   I think the
  theory of evolution makes some thoughtful predictions on how  species can
  adapt and develop, given  that a  living organism  exists and  is able to
  reproduce and pass on characteristics (inheritance).  However, an initial
  living organism must first be obtained.  The theory does not  explain how
  this happens.   If the  theory is  woefully inadequate  on something this
  fundamental, then I think the entire theory is suspect.

  As mentioned, I think that  the fact  that life  is too  complex to arise
  spontaneously is  self-evident.  I  proposed as  much in  a post  about a
  month ago.  The reaction  to the  post was  (as I  should have suspected)
  vast disagreement.  This bothered me - that something so  self-evident to
  me would be so violently objected to.  Therefore,  I did  some reading on
  the subject, to determine if  scientific evidence  concurred with  what I
  originally thought.  A (very succint)  summary of  my findings  is in the
  next two paragraphs.

  The basic proteins of which life is comprised do not occur  due to random
  natural forces.  Granted,  biomonomers can  occur spontaneously,  and can
  further  combine  to  form  proteinoids   and  some   amino  acids.   The
  proteinoids produced  by chance  do not  have the  molecular architecture
  required by  life.  The  amino acids  produced are  racemic and therefore
  useless  for biogenesis.   The synthesis   of the   proteins of   life is
  accomplished  by direction  from DNA.   The codes  found in  DNA are very
  complex.  Such  codes are  not the  product of  randomness.  "Biochemical
  predestination" has  been  postulated  by  some  as  a  way  to constrain
  randomness  such that  natural forces  could give   rise to   the complex
  macromolecules  of  life  and  the  code  found  in  DNA.   However,  all
  experiments along these lines have proven futile.   Such "predestination"
  is also theoretically invalid according to the laws of thermodynamics, as
  the tendency of nature is to run down, rather than to build itself up.

  Neither randomness nor inherent properties of matter can give rise to the
  complex  molecules that  are the  very basis  for life.   The large coded
  molecules on which life rides and  which are  synthesized only  by living
  material must  be accounted  for.  Such  codes and  complexity come about
  only through synthesis guided by intelligence.  Of course, once  life has
  been established, it will grow, reproduce,  adapt, etc.,  but the initial
  synthesis of life requires intelligence.   Viruses have  been synthesized
  by man,  but only  through intelligently  guiding  a  series  of chemical
  reactions - not by allowing random natural forces to take their course.

  I am familiar  with the  work of  Miller, Fox,  Oparin, Eigen, Prigogine,
  Eden, Teilhard, Kenyon, Steinman, Monod, and  others.  These  attempts to
  show that life can  spontaneously develop  have failed.   The attempts of
  these scientists  to explain  how their  experimental results   prove the
  spontaneous  development  of  life  amounts  to  handwaving  and  is  not
  supported   by the   evidence.  I   think that   many of   today's modern
  scientists   are  so  eager  to  do  away  with  the   existence  of  the
  intelligence that is  surely required  for life  to be  synthesized, that
  they readily accept the conclusions  drawn by  these researchers, without
  carefully weighing the EVIDENCE.

  If maximum progress is to be made in  biological science,  the leaders in
  this field must be willing to deal  honestly with  the evidence  found in
  experiments  attempting  natural biogenesis. If the  evidence  shows that
  intelligence is required, let's admit it and move on.

  (invitation to Mr.  Menem included in the following paragraph)

  The above are my conclusions reached from studying scientific data.  I am
  prepared to discuss the claims made herein. However, I am not a biologist
  so I do not have instant access  to the  publications and  data needed to
  answer each and every disagreement that is raised on this issue (nor do I
  have the time  required to  answer all  the disagreements  which may/will
  result from this post).  I  was pleased  to see  a recent  post by Carlos
  Menem, who is a biochemist and  has had  formal training  in evolutionary
  theory and genetics.  I appreciated his perspective on the discussions on
  talk.origins.  Since  Mr.  Menem  has much  more experience  in this area
  coupled with an apparently objective attitude, I invite him to enter into
  this discussion on biogenesis.  I do not know if  he agrees  or disagrees
  with my  conclusions.  However,  I hope  that he  does, as  I  believe my
  conclusions are  warranted from  scientific evidence,   and I   think any
  objective  person   who  studied   the  evidence   would   reach  similar
  conclusions.  In short, I  am looking  for an  ally among  the biological
  science community - one who is objective and not  scared off  by the idea
  that some intelligence might have been required to at least get  the ball
  rolling (whether this intelligence is involved much beyond biogenesis is,
  of course, another topic).  I  hope Mr.   Menem is  such a  person, and I
  know there are others of you out there that fit this description.  Please
  join me in adding some objectivity and rationality to this debate.

-- 
  Mark Einkauf     [ mark@einkauf.austin.ibm.com (only valid within ibm.com) ]
  IBM-AWD Graphics [ VNET EINKAUF@AUSVM6                                     ]
  Austin TX        [                                                         ]
 * Views and opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of IBM Corp. *