`it is difficult to see how a system satisfying the minimum criteria for a living thing can arise [with] a mechanism ... for its own replication...'

Here is today's Quote(s) of the Day (the words "Quote of the Day" take up too much space on the subject line so I have omitted them and will omit them in future).

[Graphic: Minimal Cell Project, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel]

They are on the origin of life by a John Keosian, Professor of Biology, Rutgers University, Newark. The first two are from the First Edition of Prof. Keosian's book, "The Origin of Life" (1964) in which he admitted that, "Even conceptually it is difficult to see how a system satisfying the minimum criteria for a living thing can arise by chance and, simultaneously, include a mechanism containing the suitable information for its own replication" (my emphasis):

"The demonstration of the transition of discrete systems into living things has to include the answers to some very intricate problems. Coacervates and microspheres, in spite of various refinements which have already been introduced in each case, are still a long way from the living state. They are both static structures. Left alone, such systems come to an equilibrium in which the status quo is maintained with no exchange of energy or materials with the environment. Neither Oparin for his coacervates nor Fox for his microspheres maintains that the simulated cell structures represent the living state. Both look to further refinements toward the eventual attainment of living things by experimental techniques. The hurdles in this transition are formidable. Blum has stressed this point in his writings. [Blum, H.F., "On the origin and evolution of living machines," American Scientist, Vol. 49, 1961, pp.474-501; Blum, H.F., "Time's Arrow and Evolution," Harper & Row: New York, Second Edition, 1962] Even conceptually it is difficult to see how a system satisfying the minimum criteria for a living thing can arise by chance and, simultaneously, include a mechanism containing the suitable information for its own replication." (Keosian, J., "The Origin of Life," [1964], Reinhold: New York NY, Second Printing, 1965, pp.69-70. Emphasis original)

and that "While replication proceeds, some other mechanism, coordinated in time and space with it, is needed to make available the requisite energy. ... we must imagine that a DNA structure was built up by chance, containing a specific sequence of nucleotides and possessing ... the machinery for self-replication" but "This amounts to postulating the `all at once' origin of a cell with `cytoplasm' and `nucleus'" (my emphasis):

"Replication and mutation present even greater difficulties. The over-all process of replication is endergonic. [Blum, H.F., `On the origin and evolution of living machines,' American Scientist_, Vol. 49, 1961, pp.474-501] While replication proceeds, some other mechanism, coordinated in time and space with it, is needed to make available the requisite energy. If all these conditions are to be met at the time of the first origin of life, we must imagine that a DNA structure was built up by chance, containing a specific sequence of nucleotides and possessing a capacity to determine the composition of a supporting environment and the machinery for self-replication. This amounts to postulating the `all at once' origin of a cell with `cytoplasm' and `nucleus.'" (Keosian, Ibid., pp.69-70. Emphasis original).

But interestingly in the second edition only ~4 years later, Keosian just dropped all reference to this, including no reference to Blum at all! Yet if origin of life research had solved this problem in the intervening ~4 years, it would surely be in his second edition.

However, Keosian did write something new that "the claim that out of a structureless `soup' there arose as the first living thing a `primitive anaerobic microorganism.' ... is inconceivable since the simplest anaerobe has at least dozens of catalyzed reactions harmoniously correlated to each other, and ... the chance assembly of all of them into a functioning unit is inconceivable" (my emphasis):

"The assumption most difficult to accept, however, is the claim that out of a structureless `soup' there arose as the first living thing a `primitive anaerobic microorganism.' This is inconceivable since the simplest anaerobe has at least dozens of catalyzed reactions harmoniously correlated to each other, and the whole is controlled by a fine coordination. Even if we were to accept the assumption that each of these reactions preexisted in the `soup,' the chance assembly of all of them into a functioning unit is inconceivable." (Keosian, J., "The Origin of Life," Reinhold: New York NY, Second Edition, 1968, p.78. Emphasis original).

Finally, ~10 years later in 1978, Keosian wrote a paper for the Second Conference of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life (ISSOL) in which he frankly stated that, "The claims of chemical evolution are unreal. We are asked to believe that biochemical compounds, biochemical reactions and mechanisms, energy metabolism and storage, specific polymerizations, codes, transcription and translation apparatus, and more, appeared in prebiotic waters" (my emphasis):

"The claims of chemical evolution are unreal. We are asked to believe that biochemical compounds, biochemical reactions and mechanisms, energy metabolism and storage, specific polymerizations, codes, transcription and translation apparatus, and more, appeared in prebiotic waters with the functions they would have in a living thing before there were living things. Chemical evolution has become an end in itself. In many cases it represents contrived or ingenious laboratory syntheses which have no counterpart in abiotic organic chemical synthesis in an acceptable range of probiotic [sic] conditions....There has been a good deal of uncritical acceptance of experiments, results, and conclusions which we are all too ready to acknowledge because they support preconceived convictions...All present approaches to a solution of the problem of the origin of life are either irrelevant or lead into a blind alley. Therein lies the crisis....The various approaches to a solution of the origin of life are examined and found wanting." [Keosian, J., "Origin of Life," in Noda, H., ed., "Origin of Life: Proceedings of the Second ISSOL Meeting, the Fifth ICOL Meeting," Center for Academic Publications: Japan, 1978, pp.569-574]" (Gish, D.T., "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics," Institute for Creation Research: El Cajon CA, 1993, p.262).

Note: Although this quote is from a YEC secondary source (and poorly referenced in it as just, "John Keosian, Origin of Life, 1978, pp. 569-574"), I have finally worked out from other Internet references that Keosian's paper is in the book by Noda and have today ordered what appears to be the only copy of it for sale.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).

---

Genesis 25:13-17. ¹³These are the names of the sons of Ishmael, listed in the order of their birth: Nebaioth the firstborn of Ishmael, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, ¹⁴Mishma, Dumah, Massa, ¹⁵Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish and Kedemah. ¹⁶These were the sons of Ishmael, and these are the names of the twelve tribal rulers according to their settlements and camps. ¹⁷Altogether, Ishmael lived a hundred and thirty-seven years. He breathed his last and died, and he was gathered to his people.