The Da Vinci Code movie

The Da Vinci Code, Philippa Hawker, May 18, 2006 A blockbuster made with a sense of what feels like weary duty. ... [Agree with the first, but not the second (see below).]

THE movie version of The Da Vinci Code might have an unbeatable combination of elements in its favour: it's based on a worldwide bestseller, it has been launched with a tidal wave of publicity, and there has been a flurry of notoriety and religious controversy, which didn't seem to do The Passion of the Christ any harm. It even had the distinction of an opening night at the Cannes Film Festival. But all this counts for nothing when the audience takes its place in the cinema, and for most of the 2 1/2 hours The Da Vinci Code feels like a slog. It's a dour, slightly murky vision: it feels, in a disconcerting way, as if director Ron Howard was trying to convey a mood of mild depression. [I, my wife and my fellow church members I spoke to after the movie yesterday (our church was offered a morning-tea + low admission price special), disagree. We all felt that the movie was very well (if not brilliantly) done, despite my low expectations after reading reviewers who all seemed to be regurgitating each other's negative reviews. Which is not to say that I agree with the facts, I certainly don't (see my webpage "The Da Vinci Code versus Christianity"). It is still almost totally factually wrong.]

And the things that a cinematic version could have added to a book that had its own plodding aspects - the pleasures of performance, the rush of bravura action sequences - just aren't there. [Frankly, I find it hard to believe this reviewer, Philippa Hawker, and I saw the same movie!] Tom Hanks is the hero, symbology expert Robert Langdon, who in the book is described by his admirers as "Harrison Ford in Harris tweed", with a voice that his female students call "chocolate to the ears". Hanks plays him with a look of unease that shifts occasionally into discomfort. [Actually, I thought Hanks played the part of Langdon to perfection.]

And Amelie's Audrey Tautou as the resourceful Sophie, [As did Tautou the part of Sophie. I would not be at all surprised if both she and Hanks win Oscars for their parts.] the cryptography expert drawn into the quest for the meaning and location of the Holy Grail, shares his anxious expression most of the time. [This is a weird criticism. They were being hunted by the French Judicial Police on a charge of murder and by a fanatical monk who had already killed in cold blood at least five people, so I would have thought the appropriate expression was "anxious"!]

Only Ian McKellen, as an eccentric Grail buff, has any real energy: the film crackles to life whenever he's on screen. His is the only character who seems to be having an adventure: everyone else just looks gloomy. [Well considering that as Sir Leigh Teabing, he was not being hunted (and I don't want to spoil the movie or book for anyone who hasn't seen or read it, by saying any more, although note that this link has a "plot spoiler" warning), unlike Langdon and Sophie, he has no reason to look gloomy.]

Dan Brown's story oscillates between cliffhanger chapter endings and mini-tutorials on da Vinci's iconography, the Grail legend and the history of the early church. [A difficult combination to translate into a movie.]

Screenwriter Akiva Goldman has managed to compress a good deal of this into the screenplay. [Agreed. It is really astonishing how much of the book he manages to include in the movie.] although those who have not read the book might find some of the plot details hard to follow. [I said that to my wife after the movie, but she disagreed. But I still think that is the case. But the alternative would be to slow the movie down with more dialogue at the expense of more briefly (or not at all) covering scenes in the book.]

Those who have read and enjoyed it will find that a few liberties have been taken with the story, and might take issue with some of them. And those with concerns about the film's capacity to offend religious sensibilities will note added elements that attempt to soften the controversy and have each-way bets about faith. [That was a big surprise. In the scenes where Teabing is spouting his nonsense about Constantine convening the Council of Nicaea to decree that Jesus was not just a man, but also God, as stated in the Nicene Creed:

"I believe ... in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God,
begotten of the Father before all worlds;
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God;
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father,
by Whom all things were made..."

the movie (but not the book) has Langdon correctly pointing out that the Council merely ratified what Christians had already believed for nearly three centuries. No doubt it was done to help avoid a boycott by Christians, but nevertheless it was good to see some countering of Brown's absurd (and indeed dishonest claims).]

But it's hard to imagine that anyone is going to feel much more than fatigue as they emerge from the cinema. [Agree, but due to all the fast-paced action, not boredom at having read the book. Personally I think the movie is better than the book.]

It's a blockbuster made with a sense of what feels like weary duty.... [Any reviewer who thinks that should consider whether the "weary duty" they are feeling is due to them having seen too many movies they were forced to watch and forgotten what it is like to just enjoy them!

During the movie the thought occurred to me that seeing it on screen will help most people to realise (if they hadn't already) that Brown's story is just fiction (indeed it is hard to think of any of its claims against Christianity that are factually true).

I am glad to see that many churches are regarding the movie as a mission opportunity. Their (and my) attitude is that of the Apostle Paul in Philippians 1:15-18 (NIV), "what does it matter?" since "whether from false motives or true", whether "out of selfish ambition" (e.g. in Dan Brown's case), "The important thing is that in every way Christ is preached" (i.e. spoken about), and therefore we Christians should "rejoice":

"¹⁵It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. ¹⁶The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. ¹⁷The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. ¹⁸But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice."]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book'

The Mother of All Problems

I was working on my `Evolution Quotes Book' yesterday and I came across some great quotes on the origin of life by Franklin M. Harold, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State University.

[Graphic: "Misconception: `Evolution is a theory about the origin of life'", Berkeley University]

He is also author of "The Way of the Cell" (2001), which I have but have only dipped into (it is future holiday reading along with Simon Conway Morris' "Life's Solution" and Sean Carroll's "Endless Forms Most Beautiful").

The quotes are from an article of Harold's, "The Mother of All Problems" in the December 2001 issue of a journal ASM News (now called Microbe), published by the American Society of Microbiology. The article does not appear to be webbed anywhere, so I have webbed a text version of it under my creation/evolution articles. Here are the quotes, prefaced by my comments.

The origin of life is "a black hole at the very foundation of biological science ":

"Slowly, and at times painfully, we are muddling towards an appreciation of how the molecular parts relate to the cell as a whole. We are also making progress in understanding cell evolution, and the genesis of that great tree of all life. By contrast, what remains altogether mysterious is just how living systems relate to the nonliving world of chemistry and physics from which they presumably sprang. The black hole at the very foundation of biological science is the origin of cells, and of life." (Harold, F.M., "The Mother of All Problems," ASM News, American Society of Microbiology, December, 2001).

The "conventional framework," which is the entire naturalistic prebiological evolution paradigm, has "no pertinent evidence whatever from the geological record supporting" it and therefore the entire "voluminous literature" including those which "claim support from laboratory experiments" are just "imaginative tales" which makes it "practically impossible" to , gauge "how seriously one should take" them:

"Here again we have a conventional framework, parts of which go back to the 1930s, that structures our thinking. It calls for a broth of organic substances formed by chemical processes on the lifeless earth. Somehow, in a favorable locale, a selection of the `correct' precursors coalesced into a primordial cell; alternatively, a molecule capable of self-replication arose by chance, and somehow `learned' to make proteins and then cells. The notion that life began with free, self-replicating RNA molecules, which begat primordial cells based on ribozymes, holds particular fascination for molecular biologists. A voluminous literature records all sorts of variations on these themes, some of which claim support from laboratory experiments. Unfortunately, there is no pertinent evidence whatever from the geological record supporting this framework and, in its absence, gauging how seriously one should take all these imaginative tales proves practically impossible." (Harold, 2001).

Interestingly Harold adds that "even the more persuasive tales come up woefully short on the central issue, which is the origin of cells" that is, "organized molecular assemblages that draw matter and energy into themselves" and then "reproduce their own structure":

"To my mind, even the more persuasive tales come up woefully short on the central issue, which is the origin of cells. Whence came organized molecular assemblages that draw matter and energy into themselves, reproduce their own structure, and evolve over time?" (Harold, 2001).

This accords with my understanding that the problem of the origin of life is not the problem of the origin of the chemicals (although that would be enough), but the problem of the origin of the minimal, self-replicating cell (see my two-part post, The Minimal Cell: A Problem of Evolution 1/2 and 2/2).

The origin of life is "the hardest nut of all" to crack and yet is also "the most consequential question in all of biology." But there is not "even a plausible hypothesis," let alone "evidence as to how this came about," and in their absence, that "cells arose by some sort of evolutionary process" is "merely a belief-a leap of faith:

"I do not mean to disparage serious scholars who are doing their level best to crack the hardest nut of all. Quite the contrary: I would argue that, if our purpose is to understand life, the origin of life is the most consequential question in all of biology. It holds the key to understanding the relationship between the living and the inanimate, the quick and the dead. Each new bit of evidence strengthens our belief that organisms obey the laws of chemistry and physics; and scientific investigations have turned up no traces of a vital force to nurture the wellspring of life. We assume, then, that cells are material systems that arose by some sort of evolutionary process four billion years ago here on earth (or conceivably, someplace else). I share this premise, but feel obliged to note that, in the absence of evidence as to how this came about (or even of a plausible hypothesis), this explanation is merely a belief-a leap of faith." (Harold, 2001).

But then here is the kicker, until naturalistic science actually "bridges" this "widest" of "all the gaps in" its "understanding of life," it "cannot lay to rest lingering doubts as to whether" it "has read nature's book of biology correctly":

"Of all the gaps in our understanding of life, this one is the widest. Until we bridge it, we cannot lay to rest lingering doubts as to whether science has read nature's book of biology correctly." (Harold, 2001).

That is, the naturalistic understanding of biology (and therefore of reality) could be wrong, after all! As Phil Johnson pointed out in Darwin on Trial, "If Darwinists are to keep the Creator out of the picture, they have to provide a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life":

"WHEN THE SUPREME COURT struck down the Louisiana law requiring balanced treatment for creation-science, Justice Antonin Scalia dissented from the decision because he thought that `The people of Louisiana, including those who are Christian fundamentalists, are quite entitled ... to have whatever scientific evidence there may be against evolution presented in their schools.' Stephen Jay Gould was baffled that a jurist of Scalia's erudition (he had held professorships at several major universities) would entertain the absurd notion that fundamentalists could have scientific evidence against evolution. Gould went looking in Scalia's opinion for an explanation, and found it in various sentences implying that evolution is a theory about the origin of life. In an article correcting `Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding,' Gould tried to set the matter straight. Evolution, he wrote, `is not the study of life's ultimate origin, as a path toward discerning its deepest meaning.' Even the purely scientific aspects of life's first appearance on earth belong to other divisions of science, because 'evolution' is merely the study of how life changes once it is already in existence. In fact, Justice Scalia used the general term `evolution' exactly as scientists use it-to include not only biological evolution but also prebiological or chemical evolution, which seeks to explain how life first evolved from nonliving chemicals. Biological evolution is just one major part of a grand naturalistic project, which seeks to explain the origin of everything from the Big Bang to the present without allowing any role to a Creator. If Darwinists are to keep the Creator out of the picture, they have to provide a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.' (Johnson, P.E., "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, pp.102-103. Emphasis original)

Which is why that cartoon above with its claim:

"Misconception: `Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.' Response: Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes"

is obviously wrong (if not dishonest). You can bet your bottom dollar that if the Darwinists had a "even a plausible hypothesis" for the origin of life, they would change their tune in an instant and claim that it as the crowning proof of evolution!

I cannot resist adding this quote from science journalist Fred Heeren's book "Show Me God," in which an astrophysicist, Edward Argyle, concluded that it seemed "impossible for the prebiotic Earth to have generated more than about 200 bits of information" which is not even close to "the amount of information in a simple virus" (let alone a free-living cell):

"Theorists are at a loss to explain how, even in a rich prebiotic soup filled with organic compounds, a sequence that creates the information necessary for life can be produced by any means where intelligence is not already involved. Using information theory, astrophysicist Edward Argyle calculated the probability that a simple organism arose on the early Earth by chance. Information theory measures information in `bits.' A combination lock, for example, may contain 20 bits of information, representing about a million possible combinations. Argyle concluded: `It would seem impossible for the prebiotic Earth to have generated more than about 200 bits of information, an amount that falls short of the 6 million bits in E. coli [a species of bacteria] by a factor of 30,000.' [Argyle, E. "Chance and the Origin of Life," in Zuckerman, B. & Hart, M.H., eds, "Extraterrestrials-Where Are They?," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1995, p. 131] He also found that when he expanded the probability to include our entire galaxy (and assumed a billion Earth-like planets), this combination of assumed pre-biotic soups still could not produce anything close to the amount of information in a simple virus. ... When Argyle says that E. coli has an information content of 6 million bits, this means that it would require 10^1,800,000 different possible cases or states for this to occur. We can get some sense of this number when we realize that scientists believe there to be 10⁸⁰ subatomic particles in the entire visible universe. (Heeren, F., "Show Me God: What the Message from Space is Telling Us About God," [1995], Day Star Publications: Wheeling IL, Revised edition, 2000, pp.61-62)

If this is so, then the materialist/naturalists are never going to get there with "even a plausible hypothesis" for the origin of life, and of the three possibilities outline by Davies:

"At the present state of our knowledge, the origin of life remains a deep mystery. That is not to say, of course, that it will always be so. Undoubtedly the physical and chemical processes that led to the emergence of life from non-life were immensely complicated, and it is no surprise that we find such processes hard to model mathematically or to duplicate in the laboratory. In the face of this basic obstacle, one can distinguish between three philosophical positions concerning the origin of life: (i) it was a miracle; (ii) it was a stupendously improbable accident; and (iii) it was an inevitable consequence of the outworking of the laws of physics and chemistry, given the right conditions. I wish to state at the outset that I shall argue strongly for (iii), which seems to be the position adopted by most of the SETI scientists." (Davies, P.C.W., "Are We Alone?: Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life," Penguin: London, 1995, p.14)

"(i) it was a miracle" (i.e. not necessarily creatio ex nihilo but at least supernatural guidance) is the only one left. As Sherlock Holmes said, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" (Doyle, A.C., "The Sign of Four," George Newnes, 1893, p.93)!

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book'

Follow the nitrogen to extraterrestrial life

Follow the nitrogen to extraterrestrial life: [Graphic: "Nitrogen Cycle," United States Environmental Protection Agency]
The narrow search for water may miss important clues, say USC geobiologists, EurekAlert!, 4-May-2006, Carl Marziali, University of Southern California [Also at PhysOrg.com & ScienceDaily] The great search for extraterrestrial life has focused on water at the expense of a crucial element, say geobiologists at the University of Southern California. Writing in the Perspectives section of the May 5 issue of Science, four USC researchers propose searching for organic nitrogen as a direct indicator of the presence of life. Nitrogen is essential to the chemistry of living organisms. Even if NASA were to find water on Mars, its presence only would indicate the possibility of life, said Kenneth Nealson, Wrigley Professor of earth sciences in the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. "It's hard to imagine life without water, but it's easy to imagine water without life," Nealson said. [This is a very good point. Presumably NASA is fixated on water because it knows that water is likely to be found on planets and moons and then when it is found it can talk up the possibility of life?]

The discovery of nitrogen on the Red Planet would be a different story. "If you found nitrogen in abundance on Mars, you would get extremely excited because it shouldn't be there," Nealson said. The reason has to do with the difference between nitrogen and carbon, the other indispensable organic element. Unlike carbon, nitrogen is not a major component of rocks and minerals. This means that any substantial organic nitrogen deposits found in the soil of Mars, or of another planet, likely would have resulted from biological activity. [Agreed. This is so elementary (harking back to my geology and ecology units) that it is hard to believe no one at NASA had thought of it. But then, as astrophysicist, turned science writer John Gribbin observed, James Lovelock of later Gaia fame (or should that be infame?), showed in 1965 (i.e. 41 years ago), when he was working for NASA, that it could be deduced from Earth by a spectroscope that, based on the lack of oxygen in its atmosphere, there was no existing life on Mars, but presumably NASA did not want to know:

"Lovelock tells how the realization came to him as a flash of insight in 1965, when he was working for NASA, designing instruments that would eventually be used by the Viking Mars probes to sniff the Martian air and look for traces of life products. He saw that there was no need to go to all the trouble and expense of sending a probe to Mars to make these subtle tests, because astronomers already knew that the atmosphere of Mars is inert and must therefore, he reasoned, signify a dead planet ... The fact that the Earth has an atmosphere rich in oxygen, full of chemical potential energy and highly reactive, is a sign that something out of the ordinary, in chemical terms, is happening on our planet. If the atmosphere of Mars resembles exhaust gases from an internal combustion engine, the atmosphere of the Earth resembles (in fact, in large measure it is) the mixture of gases that goes into such an engine. But this is only possible because plants can steal energy from the Sun. ... So a visitor from another star, entering our Solar System, could use a simple spectroscope to investigate the atmospheres of the planets, and conclude that while Venus and Mars, which both have carbon dioxide atmospheres, do not have life, Earth, with its oxygen-rich atmosphere, must have life. In the mid-1960s, Lovelock's view met with a cool response. If it had been taken seriously, it would have pulled the rug from under the whole Viking project. After all, the main purpose of the project was to look for life on Mars, and Lovelock confidently asserted that there was no life on Mars. ... In 1977 the Viking landers confirmed that Mars was indeed as lifeless as Lovelock had predicted more than ten years previously." (Gribbin, J., "In The Beginning: The Birth of the Living Universe," [1993], Penguin, London, 1994, reprint, pp.118, 120-121)

Again presumably the last thing NASA wants is a simple test(s) to show there is no (and never has been any) life on Mars!]

Dimming the hopes of life-on-Mars believers is the makeup of the planet's atmosphere. The abundant nitrogen in Earth's atmosphere is constantly replenished through biological activity. Without the ongoing contribution of living systems, the atmosphere slowly would lose its nitrogen. The extremely low nitrogen content in the Martian atmosphere suggests that biological nitrogen production is close to zero. However, the authors write, it is possible that life existed on Mars at some hypothetical time when nitrogen filled the atmosphere. Co-author Douglas Capone, Wrigley Professor of environmental biology in USC College, said NASA should establish a nitrogen detection program alongside its water-seeking effort. He noted that next-generation spacecraft will have advanced sampling capabilities. "What we're suggesting here is basically drilling down into geological strata, which they're going to be doing for water anyway," Capone said. "The real smoking gun would be organic nitrogen." Said Nealson: "If your goal is to search for life, it would be wise to include nitrogen." ... [But if your goal is more Mars missions (the "search for life" being a pretext to extract money out of Congress), then it would be "wise to" not "include nitrogen"!]

PS: The following unrelated long `tagline' quote is part of anthropologist the late Loren Eiseley's meticulously detailed case see this quote for an overview) that Darwin plagiarised (i.e. used without acknowledgment and indeed covered up) the ideas of a contemporary Edward Blyth. I will include this in my `Evolution Quotes Book' under a section on Darwin's dishonesty.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book'

---

"In Blyth's paper of 1835 occurs a statement concerning Ancon sheep. A little later in the same paragraph occurs a list of odd mutations, including `donkey-footed swine, tailless cats, back-feathered, five-toed, and rumpless fowls, together with many sorts of dogs....' This odd little concentration of mutative types is duplicated in almost the same order in Darwin's essay of 1844. Like Blyth, Darwin is discussing `sports' or hereditary monsters. Like him, Darwin mentions Ancon sheep, rumpless fowls, and tailless cats. It is true that the solid ungular swine and five-toed fowls have disappeared; but they occur in later pages of Darwin's essay. They have merely been dispersed. In the matter of claws, two pages farther on we encounter the phrase, `breeds, characterized by an extra limb or claw as in certain fowls and dogs.' In the Origin this curious sequence has vanished, though the Ancon sheep is still mentioned. Blyth, in his discussion of food and its effects on animals, comments that `herbivorous quadrupeds which browse the scanty vegetation on mountains are invariably much smaller than their brethren which crop the luxuriant produce of the plains....' Darwin in turn holds that `external conditions will doubtless influence and modify the results of the most careful selection; it has been found impossible to prevent certain breeds of cattle from degenerating on mountain pastures....' Blyth, in his discussion of hybridity, recognized dominance (i.e., prepotency) and the possibility of the re-emergence of suppressed characteristics in the third generation. In the essay of 1844 Darwin once again expresses similar views. The use and disuse concept is brought into play by Blyth in his discussion of domestic forms where `an animal...supplied regularly with ...abundance of foods without the trouble and exertion of having to seek for it...becomes, in consequence, bulky and lazy ... while the muscles of ... locomotion ... become rigid and comparatively powerless, or are not developed to their full size .' Darwin in his second essay devotes a section to this subject and comes once more to similar conclusions, which are re-expressed in the Origin. Blyth devotes considerable attention to protective coloration and the utilitarian advantages gained by such devices in the struggle for existence. In the course of this discussion Blyth, in his paper of 1835, quoted from Mudie's Feathered Tribes of the British Islands the metaphor `grouse are brown heather.' In the Origin Darwin utilizes the same device, picturing `the red grouse the color of heather.' Further on in the same section, and this time in his own words, Blyth speaks of the ptarmigan as `snow in winter.' In the same section in Darwin `the alpine ptarmigan [is] white in winter.' The discussion of protective coloration is more extended in Blyth, but his and Darwin's views of it are the same. Blyth has a vivid description of the relation of the falcon to its prey. He dwells at length upon the bird's great powers of sight. In the corresponding Darwinian passage hawks are mentioned as `guided by eyesight to their prey .' Like Blyth, Darwin then dwells upon the pruning effect exercised by these carnivorous birds in keeping the cryptic coloration of small mammals and ground-dwelling birds, such as grouse, uniform and constant through natural selection. The variant animal is unable to conceal itself successfully and is thus more subject to destruction. Although Darwin's treatment of the idea is not as lengthy as Blyth's, the descriptive material cited above is powerfully suggestive of a direct connection, particularly when it is taken in conjunction with the other evidence I have been at some pains to assemble [`such as Blyth's reference to the variation manifested in the beaks of finchlike birds']. Turning to Blyth's paper of 1837, it will be recalled that in discussing his localizing principle he touched upon the homing instinct in animals. During the course of his discussion Blyth asserted this capacity was `not wholly absent from the human constitution.' He referred to the Australian aborigines and other savages as being subject to this `intuitive impulse.' Although Darwin almost totally avoided reference to man in the Origin it is of interest to note that the homing instinct in man receives attention in both of the trial essays. It is mentioned briefly in the first essay and twice in the second. Here the Australian savage reappears. The instinctive shamming of death is also mentioned by Blyth as characteristic of certain animals. Once more Darwin treats of it briefly but critically in the essay of 1842 and again in the lengthier essay of 1844. When Blyth's papers are subjected to extended and minute analysis there is no doubt that a few additional items pointing toward a connection between the two men might be established. Even making some allowance for accidental use of the same sources, the effect is cumulative and, in the present writer's view, unexplainable by chance. Furthermore, there is ample evidence that Blyth's restrictions on divarication beyond the species level troubled Darwin and that he was forced to spend considerable time and ingenuity in finding his way around this barrier. After an investigation of this effort, it will be possible to see more clearly than heretofore why Darwin approached the subject of variation in wild nature with such timidity." (Eiseley, L.C., "Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth, and the Theory of Natural Selection," in "Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X," E.P. Dutton: New York NY, 1979, pp.60-62, 241n. References omitted)

Re: origin of life `chicken and egg problem' : What about the RNA World?

AN

Thanks for your message, which as is my normal practice with questions on a creation/ evolution/ design topic, I am copying to my blog CED, minus your identifying information.

[Graphic: RNA ribozyme ribbon diagram, "Exploring the New RNA World," by Thomas R. Cech.]

I have a long-standing policy not to get involved in private discussions on creation/evolution/design issues, so please don't interpret the comprehensiveness of this response as being an invitation to debate, because it is not. The fullness of my response is mainly for readers of my blog.

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 7:08 PM
Subject: RNA world

AN>Dear Mr Jones,
>
I have read your article on one of your sites, namely Creation/Evolution Quotes: Origin of Life #1: "... raises a question which is as yet unanswerable"

That page, "Creation/Evolution Quotes: Origin of Life #1" was last updated in 10 December, 2003. I had always intended to classify my quotes as I posted them, but due to completing a biology degree from 2000-2004, I was unable to do so. Most of my 6+ megabytes of quotes online are under Unclassified quotes.

However, I recently announced that I have decided to publish my quotes in an `Evolution Quotes Book' which will probably be a self-published eBook. As of yesterday I had added 881 quotes in 262 pages. On current projections my book will be 8,939 quotes in 2,658 pages, so after a little more than a month I am 10% there! But I expect (and hope!) that after eliminating duplicates and less important quotes as I get to them, that the eBook will end up being less than half that, i.e. ~4,000 quotes in ~1,200 pages, which will be over 3 or 4 volumes.

AN>I do not think the "chicken and egg problem" is still valid according to the present knowledge about origin of life. What about RNA World hypothesis?

To make the heading more informative, I have turned your question into a statement, using as many of your words as I could. I don't have time to answer your question in detail, so I will just post quotes that I have classified to date relevant to the "RNA World hypothesis" under rough headings in Chapter 19, "Origin of Life"

19.16.8. Nucleic acids (RNA & DNA)
a. Sugars
i. Ribose sugar is unstable and so would not have been sufficiently prevalent under prebiotic conditions

"The origin of sugars, including ribose, seems readily explicable by the prebiotic functioning of the formose reaction ... In fact we are dealing here with a complex network of reactions, producing sugars from pre-existing sugars and formaldehyde ... There are two problems with this network that should be mentioned. First, the sugars formed are rather unstable, so, if they are to be present in significant amounts, this can only be in a steady state of formation and decay. It is imperative, therefore, that the end products of sugar decay be recycled to formaldehyde. Second, it is not at all obvious how ribose, among the more than 40 sugars could have been sufficiently prevalent under prebiotic conditions." (Maynard Smith, J. & Szathmáry, E., "The Major Transitions in Evolution," W.H. Freeman: Oxford UK, 1995, pp.30-31).

ii. Precursors have to be far more concentrated than would have been likely in primordial oceans
(1) Interfering cross-reactions with other sugars formed and amino acids

"Sugars are particularly trying. While it is true that they form from formaldehyde solutions, these solutions have to be far more concentrated than would have been likely in primordial oceans. And the reaction is quite spoilt in practice by just about every possible sugar being made at the same time - and much else besides. Furthermore the conditions that form sugars also go on to destroy them. Sugars quickly make their own special kind of tar - caramel - and they make still more complicated mixtures if amino acids are around." (Cairns-Smith, A.G., "Seven Clues to the Origin of Life: A Scientific Detective Story," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1993, reprint, p.44).

b. Nucleotides
i. Synthesis of nucleosides (base and sugar linked) also poses problems
(1) Purines react with ribose to yield the corresponding nucleosides in small amounts, and the analogous reaction with pyrimidines seems hopeless

"Setting aside the problem of the origin of ribose, the synthesis of nucleosides (base and sugar linked together as in present-day nucleotides) also poses problems. Purines react with ribose to yield the corresponding nucleosides in small amounts. The analogous reaction with pyrimidines seems hopeless. The phosphorylation of nucleosides to nucleotides can be done in dry-phase with relatively good yield, but all sorts of isomers with varying degrees of phosphorylation emerge. This lack of purity is important because accurate replication of a polymer depends on chemical purity." (Maynard Smith, J. & Szathmáry, E., "The Major Transitions in Evolution," W.H. Freeman: Oxford UK, 1995, pp.31-32).

ii. Phosphorus
(1) No one has yet come up with a satisfactory explanation of how phosphorus, which is a relatively rare substance in nature, became such a crucial ingredient in RNA (and DNA)

"But as researchers continue to examine the RNA-world concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA arise initially? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under plausible prebiotic ones. For example, the process by which one creates the sugar ribose, a key ingredient of RNA, also yields a host of other sugars that would inhibit RNA synthesis. Moreover, no one has yet come up with a satisfactory explanation of how phosphorus, which is a relatively rare substance in nature, became such a crucial ingredient in RNA (and DNA)." (Horgan, J., "In The Beginning...," Scientific American, February 1991, p.103. Ellipses original).

[...]

19.18.6. Nucleic acid (RNA/DNA) first (including RNA world)
a. RNA synthesis
i. How did RNA arise initially?
(1) RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under plausible prebiotic ones

"But as researchers continue to examine the RNA-world concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA arise initially? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under plausible prebiotic ones. For example, the process by which one creates the sugar ribose, a key ingredient of RNA, also yields a host of other sugars that would inhibit RNA synthesis. Moreover, no one has yet come up With a satisfactory explanation of how phosphorus, which is a relatively rare substance in nature, became such a crucial ingredient in RNA (and DNA)." (Horgan, J., "In The Beginning...," Scientific American, February 1991, p.103. Ellipses original).

ii. Routes too artificial

(1) Unlikely that they ever took place on the early Earth

"At first glance, this doesn't really seem to be too much of a problem. An RNA nucleotide is made up of a phosphorylated ribose sugar linked to one of the four RNA bases, and a variety of plausible prebiotic synthetic routes for creating all of these have been suggested. For instance, one of the simplest prebiotic methods for creating ribose is the polymerisation of formaldehyde. Adenine can be formed from ammonia and hydrogen cyanide, as can guanine. Cytosine can be formed by reacting cyanoacetylene with cyanate, cyanogen or urea, and uracil can be produced by the hydrolysis of cytosine. But would these kinds of reactions have been plausible on the early Earth? One scientist who thinks not is Robert Shapiro at New York University, US. He argues that many of the prebiotic routes suggested for the synthesis of nucleotide bases are so artificial that it is unlikely that they ever took place on the early Earth, and that, even if they did, any yields from the reactions would have been so small and the products would have decayed so rapidly that there would have been little chance of them getting together to form nucleotides." (Evans, J., "It's alive - isn't it? ," Chemistry in Britain, Vol. 36, No. 5, May 2000, pp.44-47, p.46).

iii. Yields too small and would have decayed too rapidly
(1) Little chance of them getting together to form nucleotides

Same quote above "At first glance ...".

b. RNA chains too short

i. Only a few nucleotides have joined together before the RNA chain snaps

"If early life was based on RNA, then the first ribozymes must initially have formed abiotically on the early Earth before going on to help form the first lifeforms. Researchers propose that these first RNA sequences must have been produced by the gradual stringing together of individual nucleotide building blocks of RNA that arose naturally in the environment. When this has been attempted in the laboratory, only a few nucleotides have joined together before the RNA chain snaps - far short of the 50 nucleotides that would be needed before a sequence could show any kind of catalytic activity." (Evans, J., "It's alive - isn't it?" Chemistry in Britain, Vol. 36, No. 5, May 2000, pp.44-47, p.46).

c. RNA replication

i. Can make copies of itself only with a great deal of help from the scientist
(1) Experiments simulating the RNA world are too complicated to be plausible scenarios

"Once RNA is synthesized, it can make new copies of itself only with a great deal of help from the scientist, says Joyce of the Scripps Clinic, an RNA specialist. `It is an inept molecule,' he explains, `especially when compared with proteins.' Leslie E. Orgel of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, who has probably done more research exploring the RNA-world scenario than any other scientist, concurs with Joyce. Experiments simulating the early stages of the RNA world are too complicated to represent plausible scenarios for the origin of life, Orgel says. `You have to get an awful lot of things right and nothing wrong,' he adds." (Horgan, J., "In The Beginning...," Scientific American, February 1991, p.103. Ellipses original).

d. RNA ribozymes
i. Make only minor changes

"Exactly what form that self-replicating enzyme might have taken was first suggested 30 years ago, when RNA was put forward as the precursor to DNA and proteins in early lifeforms. In cells today, RNA is the go-between for DNA and proteins: a protein is manufactured from an RNA template, which has itself been created from a DNA template. The idea remained purely speculative until the early 1980s when Thomas Cech at the University of Colorado and Sydney Altman at Yale University independently discovered RNA molecules with catalytic ability, now known as ribozymes. This discovery immediately put on a much firmer footing the idea that RNA could have been used for both storing information and catalysing reactions in early forms of life, and in 1986 the term 'RNA world' was coined. Nevertheless, despite the fact that most scientists working in this field accept the validity of the idea, the RNA world hypothesis is still far from being proved. For one thing, in almost 20 years only seven types of natural ribozymes have been discovered: two remove introns (parts of RNA that don't code for proteins) from themselves; four cut themselves in two; and one trims off the end of an RNA precursor." (Evans, J., "It's alive - isn't it?," Chemistry in Britain, Vol. 36, No. 5, May 2000, pp.44-47, p.44)

ii. Not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date

"DNA replication is so error-prone that it needs the prior existence of protein enzymes to improve the copying fidelity of a gene-size piece of DNA. `Catch-22,' say Maynard Smith and Szathmáry. So, wheel on RNA with its now recognized properties of carrying both informational and enzymatic activity, leading the authors to state: `In essence, the first RNA molecules did not need a protein polymerase to replicate them; they replicated themselves.' Is this a fact or a hope? I would have thought it relevant to point out for 'biologists in general' that not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (10²⁴) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences." (Dover, G.A., "Looping the evolutionary loop," Review of "The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origin of Language," by John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry, Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 1999. Nature, Vol. 399, 20 May 1999, pp.217-218).

I have many more quotes on the problems of the RNA world (these are only from my quotes of 1999-2001). But as it happened, I found another one yesterday, which I will add to my May 2006 Unclassified Quotes page, the important point being the last line, which is another chicken-and-egg problem, "It also raises an important difficulty for theories of the origin of life. The genome could not become greater than 100 bases in the absence of specific replication enzymes, yet a genome of less than 100 bases could hardly code for such an enzyme" (my emphasis):

The accuracy of replication If the replication process were exact, no new variants would arise, and evolution would slow down and stop. The _in vitro_ experiments work only because enzyme replication of RNA is not exact. However, evolution would also be impossible if the replication process were too inaccurate. Thus although an occasional error in replication, or mutation, may lead to an improvement in adaptation, most will lead to deterioration. Hence, too high an error rate will lead to loss of adaptation. I now try to make this idea quantitative. How accurate must replication be if adaptation is to be maintained? ... Equation 2.13 [Q ~ r/R] gives the critical value of Q, the accuracy of replication, if the adapted sequence, S, is to be maintained by selection against the deterioration caused by mutation. If the replication rate of the mutants is only slightly less than that of the optimal S sequence (i.e. weak selection), then the accuracy Q must be high, because the mutant particles compete with S for resources. What if mutants replicate slowly: in the extreme case, suppose they do not replicate at all? It does not follow that any degree of accuracy, however low, will be sufficient. Thus S particles will not be immortal: there will be some rate of destruction, or `death rate', even in the absence of competition from non-S particles. On average, each S particle must, during its life, produce one perfect S copy. Hence if the average number of copies per S particle before it is destroyed is R, then Q > 1/R is necessary. The critical accuracy, then, depends both on the success of non-S copies, and, if non-S particles have a low replication rate, on the average number of copies produced by an S particle during its lifetime. In practice, it seems unlikely that evolution would be possible if Q < 1/2. The practical implication of this is that it places a limit on the size of the genome, for any given replication accuracy. Thus consider a genome of n nucleotides, and let the probability that an error is made in replication be u per nucleotide. Then Q = (1 - u)<sup>n</sup> = e<sup>-nu</sup>. Hence the maintenance of adaptation requires, very approximately, that nu < 1. Three very different error rates exist: the rate for replication in the absence of enzymes, which may have occurred during the origin of life; the rate for replication of RNA, which does not involve a `proof-reading' stage; and the rate for the replication of DNA, with proof-reading. The values are, very approximately, as follows:

   error rate (u)
non-enzymic replication 1/10 - 1/100
RNA replication  10-3 - 10-4
DNA replication  10-9 - 10-10

The requirement that nu < 1 then explains the fact that the genome of RNA viruses is never greater than about 10⁴ bases, and of higher organisms no greater than 10⁹ bases. It also raises an important difficulty for theories of the origin of life. The genome could not become greater than 100 bases in the absence of specific replication enzymes, yet a genome of less than 100 bases could hardly code for such an enzyme: for further discussion of this problem, see Eigen et al. (1981), and Maynard Smith and Szathmary (1995)." (Maynard Smith, J., "Evolutionary Genetics," [1988], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 1998, Second edition, 2000, reprint, pp.20-24. Emphasis original)

So, that alone kills "the RNA World hypothesis," not that it ever was alive, according to leading origin of life theorists Joyce and Orgel in a chapter "Another Chicken-and-Egg Paradox" in a book titled "The RNA World":

"In the 1980s a scientist named Thomas Cech showed that some RNA has modest catalytic abilities. Because RNA, unlike proteins, can act as a template and so potentially can catalyze its own replication, it was proposed that RNA-not protein-started earth on the road to life. Since Cech's work was reported, enthusiasts have been visualizing a time when the world was soaked with RNA on its way to life; this model has been dubbed `the RNA world.' Unfortunately, the optimism surrounding the RNA world ignores known chemistry. In many ways the RNA-world fad of the 1990s is reminiscent of the Stanley Miller phenomenon during the 1960s: hope struggling valiantly against experimental data. Imagining a realistic scenario whereby natural processes may have made proteins on a prebiotic earth-although extremely difficult-is a walk in the park compared to imagining the formation of nucleic acids such as RNA. The big problem is that each nucleotide `building block' is itself built up from several components, and the processes that form the components are chemically incompatible. Although a chemist can make nucleotides with ease in a laboratory by synthesizing the components separately, purifying them, and then recombining the components to react with each other, undirected chemical reactions overwhelmingly produce undesired products and shapeless goop on the bottom of the test tube. Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel-two scientists who have worked long and hard on the origin of life problem-call RNA `the prebiotic chemist's nightmare.' They are brutally frank: `Scientists interested in the origins of life seem to divide neatly into two classes. The first, usually but not always molecular biologists, believe that RNA must have been the first replicating molecule and that chemists are exaggerating the difficulties of nucleotide synthesis.... The second group of scientists are much more pessimistic. They believe that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive earth would have been a near miracle. (The authors subscribe to this latter view). Time will tell which is correct. [Joyce G.F. & Orgel L.E., "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," in "The RNA World," Gesteland R.F. & Atkins J.F., eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor NY, 1993, p.19] Even if the miracle-like coincidence should occur and RNA be produced, however, Joyce and Orgel see nothing but obstacles ahead. In an article section entitled "Another Chicken-and-Egg Paradox" they write the following: `This discussion ... has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA s catalytic potential.... Without evolution it appears unlikely that a self-replicating ribozyme could arise, but without some form of self-replication there is no way to conduct an evolutionary search for the first, primitive self-replicating ribozyme. [Joyce & Orgel, 1993, p.13] In other words, the miracle that produced chemically intact RNA would not be enough. Since the vast majority of RNAs do not have useful catalytic properties, a second miraculous coincidence would be needed to get just the right chemically intact RNA." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, pp.171-172)

The above quote is one of many in my online database of Unclassified Quotes that I have yet to get to, from 2002-2006.

AN>I will be grateful to hear from you.
Best wishes
>
>AN

But of course if one is a philosophical materialist/naturalist, the problems (indeed the evidence) of the origin of life does not matter. Then, along with the National Academy of Sciences, since: 1) life exists; and 2) unintelligent natural process is the only possibility; 3) "the question is no longer" (indeed never was, is not now, nor ever will be), "whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components", but only "which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells":

"For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells." ("Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences," National Academy Press: Washington DC, Second Edition, 1999, p.6)

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol)
`Evolution Quotes Book'

Universe 'child of previous one' #2

Universe 'child of previous one', BBC, 5 May 2006 ... [Continued from part #1] But these processes would take so long that, according to the standard theory, all matter in the universe would totally dissipate in the meantime. [Graphic: Cyclic universe colliding branes, Paul J. Steinhardt] Turok and Steinhardt's theory is an alternative to another explanation called the "anthropic principle", which argues that the constant can have a range of values in different parts of the universe but that we happen to live in a region conducive to life. "The anthropic explanations are very controversial and many people do not like them," said Alexander Vilenkin a professor of theoretical physics at Tufts University in Maryland. [I have no brief for the "anthropic principle", which is just another naturalistic attempt to explain away the evidence of design in the fine-tunedness of the Universe for life. But the reason why "many people [i.e. atheist cosmologist] do not like" "anthropic explanations" is because it "is the design argument in scientific [i.e. naturalistic] costume":

"The anthropic principle is the design argument in scientific costume. Its appeal is demonstrated in Sir Fred Hoyle's evaluation of his own research into the "resonance states" of carbon atoms. Carbon is the fourth most abundant cosmic element, after hydrogen, helium, and oxygen. It is also the basis of terrestrial life. (That's why the study of carbon compounds is known as organic chemistry.) Carbon atoms are made inside stars. To make one takes three helium nuclei. The trick is to get two helium nuclei to stick together until they are struck by a third. It turns out that this feat depends critically on the internal resonances of carbon and oxygen nuclei. Were the carbon resonance level only 4 percent lower, carbon atoms wouldn't form in the first place. Were the oxygen resonance level only half a percent higher, virtually all the carbon would be "scoured out," meaning that it would have combined with helium to form oxygen. No carbon, no us, so our existence depends in some sense on the fine-tuning of these two nuclear resonances. Hoyle says that his atheism-and atheism is, let's face it, a faith like any other-was shaken by this discovery." (Ferris, T., "The Whole Shebang: A State-of-the-Universe(s) Report," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, 1997, pp.304-305)]

Rather than making precise predictions for features of the universe the anthropic principle gives a vague range of values so it is difficult for physicists to test, he added. [Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! How is Turok and Steinhardt's theory to be tested in its prediction that "matter keeps on expanding and dissipating into infinite space before another horrendous blast of radiation and matter replenishes it" sometime after "the next 10 billion years"?]

"It's absolutely terrible, it really is giving up," said Prof Turok, "It's saying that we are never going to understand the state of the universe. It just has to be that way for us to exist." [Well, if that is the truth then it is not "giving up" accepting that!]

His explanation by contrast is built up from first principles. But if he's right, how long have we got until the next big bang? "We can't predict when it will happen with any precision - all we can say is it won't be within the next 10 billion years." Good job, because if we were around we would instantly disintegrate into massless particles of light. ... [If they "can't predict when it will happen with any precision" then that is reason to think that this is just mere speculation.]

'Cyclic universe' can explain cosmological constant, New Scientist, 4 May 2006, Zeeya Merali, A cyclic universe, which bounces through a series of big bangs and "big crunches", could solve the puzzle of our cosmological constant, physicists suggest. The cosmological constant represents the energy of empty space, and is thought to be the most likely explanation for the observed speeding up of the expansion of the universe. But its measured value is a googol (1 followed by 100 zeroes) times smaller than that predicted by particle physics theories. It is a discrepancy that gives cosmologists a real headache. In the 1980s, physicists considered the possibility that an initially large cosmological constant could decay down to the value measured today. But this theory was abandoned when calculations showed that it would take far longer than 14 billion years - the time since the big bang - for the constant to reach the level seen today. Now physicists Paul Steinhardt at Princeton University, in New Jersey, US, and Neil Turok at Cambridge University in the UK, are resurrecting the idea. They point out that if time stretches back beyond the big bang, the problem could be solved. At that is just what is predicted by their cyclic model of the universe - an alternative to the Standard Big Bang theory - which the pair first developed in 2002 (see "Cycles of creation"). "Ever since the 1960s, people assumed that the big bang was the beginning of time, because the laws of physics seem to break down there," says Turok. But the equations of string theory tell a different story, allowing time to exist before the big bang, he says. [So their theory is dependent on "string theory" being proved to be true, yet according to Wikipedia, "String theory as a whole has not yet made falsifiable predictions that would allow it to be experimentally tested"! And even then, it would still only "allow time to exist before the big bang", it would remain to be shown that there actually was "time before the big bang."]

According to Steinhardt and Turok, today's universe is part of an endless cycle of big bangs and big crunches, with each cycle lasting about a trillion years. At every big bang, the amount of matter and radiation in the universe is reset, but the cosmological constant is not. Instead, the cosmological constant gradually diminishes over many cycles to the small value observed today. The physicists' calculations show that the cosmological constant decreases in steps, through a series of quantum transitions. Crucially, the higher the value of the constant, the more rapid the transitions, says Turok. But as the constant reaches lower levels, it changes more slowly, lingering on the lowest positive value for an extremely long time. [Again, if the universe is "infinitely old and infinitely large" then this would already have happened an infinitely long time ago. Their theory is therefore self-contradictory, if not self-refuting!

Here is a quote (to be included in my `Evolution Quotes Book') by mathematician Martin Gardner, originally published in Skeptical Inquirer on the absurd implications of infinite universes, including, "In an infinity of possible worlds there are lands of Oz, Greek gods on Mount Olympus, anything you can imagine. . Somewhere millions [indeed an infinity] of Ahabs are chasing whales. Somewhere millions [indeed an infinity] of Huckleberry Finns are floating down rivers" (parentheses mine):

"We come now to a third kind of multiverse, by far the wildest of the three. It has been set forth not by a scientist but by a peculiar philosopher, now at Princeton University, named David Lewis. In his best-known book, The Plurality of Worlds (Oxford, 1986), and other writings, Lewis seriously maintains that every logically possible universe-that is, one with no logical contradictions such as square circles-is somewhere out there. The notion of logical possible worlds, by the way, goes back to Leibniz's Theodicy. He speculated that God considered all logically possible worlds, then created the one He deemed best for His purposes. Both the MWI and Lewis's possible worlds allow time travel into the past. You need never encounter the paradox of killing yourself, yet you are still alive, because as soon as you enter your past the universe splits into a new one in which you and your duplicate coexist. Most of Lewis's worlds do not contain any replicas of you, but if they do they can be as weird as you please. You can't, of course, simultaneously have five fingers on each hand and seven on each hand because that would be logically contradictory. But you could have a hundred fingers, and a dozen arms, or seven heads. Any world you can think of without contradiction is real. Can pigs fly? Certainly. There is nothing contradictory about pigs with wings. In an infinity of possible worlds there are lands of Oz, Greek gods on Mount Olympus, anything you can imagine. Every novel is a possible world. Somewhere millions of Ahabs are chasing whales. Somewhere millions of Huckleberry Finns are floating down rivers. Every kind of universe exists if it is logically consistent. David Lewis's mad multiverse was anticipated by hordes of science-fiction writers long before the MWI of QM came from Everett's brain. " (Gardner, M., "Are Universes Thicker than Blackberries?," in Are Universes Thicker Than Blackberries? : Discourses on Gödel, Magic Hexagrams, Little Red Riding Hood, and Other Mathematical and Pseudoscientific Topics," W.W. Norton & Co: New York NY, 2003, p.7)]

That means that today's universe is most likely to have a small cosmological constant, just as we currently observe, says Turok. "This is an ingenious solution," says cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, US. But he points out that there are other cosmic coincidences that the cyclic model cannot explain, like why the size of the cosmological constant is so similar to the density of matter in the universe today. Turok says that he and Steinhardt will be looking at that problem next. [Note what Vilenkin said: "cannot explain," not does not explain. And Vilenkin by the plural coincidences indicates that there are more than one "cosmic coincidences that the cyclic model cannot explain". So in addition to its other problems, Turok and Steinhardt's theory does not even explain major features of this Universe, let alone and infinite number of universes before and after the Big Bang!]

"This is an initial attempt to go beyond Einstein's theory of gravity," says Turok. "It would be surprising if we solved everything first time." ... [Well it doesn't sound like they have "solved" anything! But Steinhardt and Turok have succeeded in keeping their name in lights, in the pursuit of what Horgan calls "ironic science," i.e. science pursued "in a speculative, postempirical mode" by "strong scientists who are seeking to misread and therefore to transcend the big bang theory " with the aid of "journalists who feed society's hunger" for "scientific `revolutions,'" but which "does not converge on the truth":

"Given these troubling issues, it is no wonder that many scientists whom I interviewed for this book seemed gripped by a profound unease. But their malaise, I will argue, has another, much more immediate cause. If one believes in science, one must accept the possibility-even the probability-that the great era of scientific discovery is over. By science I mean not applied science, but science at its purest and grandest, the primordial human quest to understand the universe and our place in it. Further research may yield no more great revelations or revolutions, but only incremental, diminishing returns. ... In trying to understand the mood of modern scientists I have found that ideas from literary criticism can serve some purpose after all. In his influential 1973 essay, like Anxiety of Influence, Harold Bloom likened the modern poet to Satan in Milton's Paradise Lost. Just as Satan fought to assert his individuality by defying the perfection of God, so must the modern poet engage in an Oedipal struggle to define himself or herself in relation to Shakespeare, Dante, and other masters. The effort is ultimately futile, Bloom said, because no poet can hope to approach, let alone surpass, the perfection of such forebears. Modern poets are all essentially tragic figures, latecomers. ... Bloom's `strong poets' accept the perfection of their predecessors and yet strive to transcend it through various subterfuges, including a subtle misreading of the predecessors' work; only by so doing can modern poets break free of the stultifying influence of the past. There are strong scientists, too, those who are seeking to misread and therefore to transcend quantum mechanics or the big bang theory or Darwinian evolution. Roger Penrose is a strong scientist. For the most part, he and others of his ilk have only one option: to pursue science in a speculative, postempirical mode that I call ironic science. Ironic science resembles literary criticism in that it offers points of view, opinions, which are, at best, interesting, which provoke further comment. But it does not converge on the truth. It cannot achieve empirically verifiable surprises that force scientists to make substantial revisions in their basic description of reality. The most common strategy of the strong scientist is to point to all the shortcomings of current scientific knowledge, to all the questions left unanswered. But the questions tend to be ones that may never be definitively answered given the limits of human science. How, exactly, was the universe created? Could our universe be just one of an infinite number of universes? Could quarks and electrons be composed of still smaller particles, ad infinitum? What does quantum mechanics really mean?... Biology has its own slew of insoluble riddles. How, exactly, did life begin on earth? Just how inevitable was life's origin and its subsequent history? The practitioner of ironic science enjoys one obvious advantage over the strong poet: the appetite of the reading public for scientific `revolutions:' As empirical science ossifies, journalists such as myself, who feed society's hunger, will come under more pressure to tout theories that supposedly transcend quantum mechanics or the big bang theory or natural selection. Journalists are, after all, largely responsible for the popular impression that fields such as chaos and complexity represent genuinely new sciences superior to the stodgy old reductionist methods of Newton, Einstein, and Darwin." (Horgan, J., "The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age," [1996], Little, Brown & Co: London, 1997, pp.7-8. Emphasis original)

As for "Darwinian evolution" being in the same league as "quantum mechanics" above, this is presumably for the purposes of Horgan's "ironic science" thesis where he later in chapter 5, "The End of Evolutionary Biology," contrasts Dawkins as the orthodox biologist and Gould as the "ironic" one. That may actually be the case, but it does not therefore mean that Dawkins is right and Gould was wrong in their repective positions on "Darwinian evolution." As many biologists (including the pioneer paleoanthropologist and professor of zoology Robert Broom - see `tagline') have pointed out, Darwin himself later "had serious doubts about" the relative importance of his own theory of natural selection!]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book'

---

"Though Darwin in all his later life regarded Natural Selection as the chief agent in Evolution, he often appears to have had serious doubts about it. In 1871 he wrote The Descent of Man, in which he shows that he no longer believes in Natural Selection as having originated many of the human characters. He says: `The characteristic differences between the races of man cannot be accounted for in a satisfactory manner by the direct action of the conditions of life, nor by the effects of the continued use of parts, nor through the principle of correlation. ... So far as we are enabled to judge (although always liable to error on this head) not one of the external differences between the races of man are of any direct or special service to him.' [Darwin C.R., "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex," [1871], John Murray: London, Second edition, 1874, Reprinted, 1922, p.307] He thus seems to admit that many human characters could not have arisen by Natural Selection, and he proposed a new theory. "We have thus far been baffled in all our attempts to account for the differences between the races of man; but there remains one important agency, namely, Sexual Selection, which seems to have acted as powerfully on man as in many other animals." [Darwin, 1874, pp.307-308] Though Darwin devoted the greater part of two volumes to showing the part Sexual Selection has played in the Animal Kingdom, one feels that he was not quite happy about it. He says, for example: `The views here advanced, on the part which Sexual Selection has played in the history of man, want scientific precision. He who does not admit this agency in the case of the lower animals, will probably disregard all that I have written in the latter chapters on man.'" [Darwin, 1874, p.308]" (Broom R., "Finding the Missing Link," [1950], Greenwood Press: Westport CT, Second edition, 1951, Reprinted, 1975, pp.100-101)

Universe 'child of previous one' #1

Universe 'child of previous one', BBC, 5 May 2006, Sarah Cruddas ... [Graphic: "Big Bang," Wikipedia] A joint UK-US team has put forward an alternative theory of cosmic evolution. It proposes that the Universe undergoes cycles of "Big Bangs" and "Big Crunches", meaning our Universe is merely a "child of the previous one". It challenges the conventional view of the cosmos, which observations show to be 12-14 billion years old. The new ideas, reported in the journal Science, may explain why the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, the researchers say. "At present the conventional view is that all of space, time, matter and energy began at a single point, which then expanded and cooled, leaving the Universe as it is today," said Professor Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, New Jersey. "However, this new theory suggests that there's a continuous cycle of universes, with each a repeat of the last, but not an exact replica. "It can be thought of as a child of the previous universe." [Graphic: "Paul_Steinhardt," Princeton University] ... The new idea builds on previous work by the same team, and is set to challenge the current model. Einstein: "The greatest blunder of my career." Back in the 1920s, when Einstein was developing his general theory of relativity, he introduced a constant, known as the cosmological constant, to explain his idea of a static Universe. Einstein's equations predicted a Universe collapsing under its own gravitational force, whereas observation showed it clearly was not contracting. The cosmological constant represented an inherent pressure or force associated with free space, which would be resisting the gravity-drive contraction. The concept was later abandoned when observations showed the Universe to be expanding - causing Einstein to label the cosmological constant as "the greatest blunder of my career". In 1998, a form of the constant was re-habilitated when it was found that the Universe's expansion was actually speeding up. Although the re-introduction of the constant enabled calculations to match theory, it also raised the question that there was something in physics that was "missing". Things that are happening now will help to create another universe in the future Professor Neil Turok, of Cambridge University [said] ...: "When the value of the cosmological constant was calculated, it was found to be much smaller than expected."The explanation as to why this constant is so small has become one of the biggest problems in physics. [Graphic: "Neil_Turok," Cambridge University] "At present, the only explanation for this is that things just have to be that way." This theory leaves many questions unanswered, but now Professors Steinhardt and Turok have developed a new theory to explain why the cosmological constant is so small. They suggest that time actually began before the Big Bang, meaning there was a pre-existing universe. This would also mean that the current Universe is much older than presently accepted. ... "At present there may be an alternative 'dark matter' universe that exists at the same time as ours, but we could never reach it," explained Professor Turok. "The best way to think of this is to think of a pane of double glazing with a fly on it. The fly is unable to cross over from one side to another, just like we are unable to get from one universe to another. "These two universes are drawn together by the force of gravity and will eventually collide. "This means that things that are happening now will help to create another universe in the future." ... [I am no cosmologist, but my understanding is that running the Big Bang backwards one gets to a singularity where time = zero:

"Clearly, if the universe is growing bigger, it must have been smaller in the past. We can imagine running the great cosmic movie backwards until all the galaxies are squashed together. This compressed state corresponds to the time of the big bang, and in a certain sense the expansion of the universe can be considered as a vestige of that initial explosion. Today it is normal for cosmologists to claim that the universe began with the big bang. This weighty conclusion follows if you trace the expansion back in time to some idealized point of origin at which all the matter of the universe is concentrated in one place. Such a state of infinite density represents an infinite gravitational field and infinite spacetime curvature -i.e., a singularity. The big-bang singularity is similar to the situation at the center of a black hole that I described in the previous chapter, but lying in the past rather than the future. As it is not possible to extend space and time through such a singularity, it follows that the big bang must be the origin of time itself. People, especially journalists who get angry about scientists explaining everything, often ask: What happened before the big bang? If this theory is correct, the answer is simple: nothing. If time itself began with the big bang, there was no `before' for anything to happen in. Although the concept of time being abruptly `switched on' at some singular first event is a hard one to grasp, it is by no means new. Already in the fifth century, Augustine proclaimed that: `The world was made, not in time, but simultaneously with time.' [Augustine, "Confessions," Pine-Coffin, R.S., transl., Penguin: Baltimore MD, 1961, p.294] Keen to counter jibes about what God was doing before he made the universe, Augustine placed God outside of time altogether, making him the creator of time itself. ... the idea of time coming into being with the universe therefore fits very naturally into Christian theology. ... we shall see that recent ideas in quantum physics have changed our picture of the origin of time somewhat, but the essential conclusion remains the same: time did not exist before the big bang." (Davies, P.C.W., "About Time: Einstein's Unfinished Revolution", Penguin Books: London, 1995, pp.131-132. Emphasis original)

If Davies is right then it is incoherent to talk about "time actually began before the Big Bang" (although see part #2).

In compiling my Evolution Quotes Book yesterday, I came across this quote by the late Sagan:

"It is often considered that at least the origin of the universe requires a God - indeed an Aristotelian idea. This is a point worth looking at in a little more detail. First of all, it is perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore requires no Creator. This is consistent with existing knowledge of cosmology, which permits an oscillating universe in which the events since the Big Bang are merely the latest incarnation in an infinite series of creations and destructions of the universe." (Sagan, C.E., "Broca's Brain: The Romance of Science," [1974], Coronet: London, 1980, reprint, pp.354-355)

which makes it clear that the real motivation of cosmologists postulating an oscillating universe is religious, i.e. to find any alternative that "requires no Creator". Why that is so is clear from this quote of Paul Davies that I also found yesterday:

"If we believe in only one universe then the remarkably uniform arrangement of cosmic matter, and the consequent coolness of space, are almost miraculous, a conclusion which strongly resembles the traditional religious concept of a world which was purpose-built by God for subsequent habitation by mankind. " (Davies, P.C.W., "Other Worlds," [1980], Penguin: London, 1990, reprint, p.162).]

One Big Bang, or were there many?, The Guardian, James Randerson, May 5, 2006 The universe is at least 986 billion years older than physicists thought and is probably much older still, according to a radical new theory. [It is not a completely new theory. In searching Science for this article, I found that Steinhardt and Turok had published a paper in Science in 2002, titled "A Cyclic Model of the Universe."]

The revolutionary study suggests that time did not begin with the big bang 14 billion years ago. This mammoth explosion which created all the matter we see around us, was just the most recent of many. The standard big bang theory says the universe began with a massive explosion, but the new theory suggests it is a cyclic event that consists of repeating big bangs and big crunches - where every particle of matter collapses together. "People have inferred that time began then, but there really wasn't any reason for that inference," said Neil Turok "What we are proposing is very radical. It's saying there was time before the big bang." [And I say that that is incoherent (although see part #2) and just a play on the word "time." Science cannot even reconcile relativistic physics and quantum physics in this Universe, let alone postulate that time and space is continuous across the Big Bang singularity boundary.]

Under his theory, published today in the journal Science with Paul Steinhardt at Princeton University in New Jersey, the universe must be at least a trillion years old with many big bangs happening before our own. With each bang, the theory predicts that matter keeps on expanding and dissipating into infinite space before another horrendous blast of radiation and matter replenishes it. [Personally, this sounds to me as just speculative nonsense, on a par with the old lady who claimed it was "turtles all the way down". It is certainly non-testable (and therefore not science) if we have to wait another "trillion years" to test the theory! ]

"I think it is much more likely to be far older than a trillion years though," said Prof Turok. ["More likely" sounds pretty vague. It seems that they don't have any hard numbers. John Horgan, in his "The End of Science" (the theme of which is that science is becoming a victim of its own success and leading scientists, including cosmologists, who want to make a name for themselves, have to indulge in highly speculative "ironic science") records revealing comments by Turok which indicate the threat that the Big Bang poses to cosmologists who want to make their mark:

"David Schramm of Fermilab and the University of Chicago likes to call these three lines of evidence-the red shift of galaxies, the microwave background, and the abundance of elements-the pillars on which the big bang theory stands. ... He is an indefatigable booster of the bag bang-and of his own role in refining the calculations of light-element abundances. After I arrived at the symposium in Sweden, Schramm sat me down and went over the evidence for the big bang in great detail. `The big bang is in fantastic shape,' he said. `We have the basic framework. We just need to fill in the gaps.' ... Schramm delivered much the same message to his fellow cosmologists at the Nobel symposium. He kept proclaiming that cosmology was in a `golden age.' His chamber of commerce enthusiasm seemed to grate on some of his colleagues; after all, one does not become a cosmologist to fill in the details left by the pioneers. ... Toward the end of the meeting in Sweden, Hawking, Schramm, and all the other cosmologists piled into a bus and drove to a nearby village to hear a concert. ... Doubts had infiltrated the scientific priesthood, however. In the moments before the concert began, I overheard a conversation between David Schramm and Neil Turok, a young British physicist. Turok confided to Schramm that he was so concerned about the intractability of questions related to dark matter and the distribution of galaxies that he was thinking of quitting cosmology and entering another field. `Who says we have any right to understand the universe, anyway?' Turok asked plaintively. Schramm shook his big head. The basic framework of cosmology, the big bang theory, was absolutely sound, he whispered insistently, as the orchestra began warming up; cosmologists just needed to tie up a few loose ends. `Things will sort themselves out,' Schramm said. Turok seemed to find Schramm's words comforting, but he probably should have been alarmed. What if Schramm was right? What if cosmologists already had, in the big bang theory, the major answer to the puzzle of the universe? What if all that remained was tying up loose ends, those that could be tied up? Given this possibility, it is no wonder that `strong' scientists such as Hawking have vaulted past the big bang theory into postempirical science. What else can someone so creative and ambitious do?" (Horgan, J., "The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age," [1996], Little, Brown & Co: London, 1997, pp.97-98)]

"There doesn't have to be a beginning of time. According to our theory, the universe may be infinitely old and infinitely large." [See the Davies and Sagan quotes above. Another thing wrong with this is that there is no actual, real "infinity". If there was, then anything (and its opposite) would be possible, indeed inevitable, and science would cease to exist because anything and everything would have already have happened an infinite number of times and therefore could be explained simply by chance. Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga makes this point:

"Nowadays, however, the most popular version of the argument from design involves the exquisite fine tuning of the laws or regularities of nature. The fundamental constants of physics--the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the strength of the weak and strong nuclear forces--must apparently have values that fall within an extremely narrow range for life to be so much as possible. If these values had been even minutely different (if, for example, the gravitational constant had been different in even the most minuscule degree) habitable planets would not have developed and life (at least life at all like ours) would not have been possible. This suggests or makes plausible the thought that the world was designed or created by a Designer who intended the existence of living creatures and eventually rational, intelligent, morally significant creatures. Like its 17th and 18th century predecessors, this version of the argument is probabilistic rather than deductive: given the nature of the world, it is likely that it was fashioned by an intelligent Designer. The premises don't entail the conclusion, but are supposed to give you some reason to accept it. Dennett's rejoinder to the argument is that possibly, `there has been an evolution of worlds (in the sense of whole universes) and the world we find ourselves in is simply one among countless others that have existed throughout all eternity.' And given infinitely many universes, Dennett thinks, all the possible distributions of values over the cosmological constants would have been tried out; as it happens, we find ourselves in one of those universes where the constants are such as to allow for the development of intelligent life (where else?). Well, perhaps all this is logically possible (and then again perhaps not). As a response to a probabilistic argument, however, it's pretty anemic. How would this kind of reply play in Tombstone, or Dodge City? `Waal, shore, Tex, I know it's a leetle mite suspicious that every time I deal I git four aces and a wild card, but have you considered the following? Possibly there is an infinite succession of universes, so that for any possible distribution of possible poker hands, there is a universe in which that possibility is realized; we just happen to find ourselves in one where someone like me always deals himself only aces and wild cards without ever cheating. So put up that shootin' arn and set down 'n shet yore yap, ya dumb galoot.' Dennett's reply shows at most ('at most', because that story about infinitely many universes is doubtfully coherent) what was never in question: that the premises of this argument from apparent design do not entail its conclusion. But of course that was conceded from the beginning: it is presented as a probabilistic argument, not one that is deductive valid. Furthermore, since an argument can be good even if it is not deductively valid, you can't refute it just by pointing out that it isn't deductively valid. You might as well reject the argument for evolution by pointing out that the evidence for evolution doesn't entail that it ever took place, but only makes that fact likely. You might as well reject the evidence for the earth's being round by pointing out that there are possible worlds in which we have all the evidence we do have for the earth's being round, but in fact the earth is flat. Whatever the worth of this argument from design, Dennett really fails to address it. " (Plantinga, A., "Darwin, Mind and Meaning." Review of "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel C. Dennett, Simon & Schuster, 1996. Books and Culture, May/June 1996. Emphasis original)]

Today most cosmologists believe the universe will carry on expanding until all the stars burn out, leaving nothing but their cold dead remains. But there is an inherent problem with this picture. The Cosmological Constant - a mysterious force first postulated by Albert Einstein that appears to be driving the galaxies apart - is much too small to fit the theory. Einstein later renounced it as his "biggest blunder". The Cosmological Constant is a mathematical representation of the energy of empty space, also known as "dark energy", which exerts a kind of anti-gravity force pushing galaxies apart at an accelerating rate. It happens to be a googol (1 followed by 100 zeroes) times smaller than would be expected if the universe was created in a single Big Bang. [This is incoherent also. Even in their infinity of cyclical universes theory, this would be the one cycle that had a cosmological constant of the current value. So it is at least possible that one Universe can have that value. Therefore on Ockham's Razor principle of parsimony, there is no need to invoke infinite number of universes to explain this one. Paul Davies says as much regarding the multiverse theory, which has a similar anti-God motivation:

"In spite of the apparent ease with which the many-universes theory can account for what would otherwise be considered remarkable feature of the universe, the theory faces a number of serious objections. Not least of these is Ockham's razor: one must introduce a vast (indeed infinite) complexity to explain the regularities of just one universe. This `blunderbuss' approach to explaining the specialness of our universe is scientifically questionable. Another problem is that the theory can explain only those aspect of nature that are relevant to the existence of conscious life, otherwise there is no selection mechanism. Many of the best examples of design, such as the ingenuity and unity of particle physics, have little obvious connection with biology." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Science," in Templeton J.M., ed., "Evidence of Purpose: Scientists Discover the Creator," Continuum: New York NY, 1994, pp.52-53)]

But its value could be explained if the universe was much, much older than most experts believe. Mechanisms exist that would allow the Constant to decrease incrementally through time. [If the universe really was "infinitely old" then the cosmological constant would already have "decreased incrementally through time" an infinite time ago and would now be zero. The fact that it is not zero, would seem to completely refute their theory?]

[Continued in part #2]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book'