This is the Bibliography "T" page for authors' surnames beginning
[Left: Thaxton, Bradley & Olsen's, "The Mystery of Life's Origin" (1984), which is generally credited with marking the beginning of the modern Intelligent Design movement. The `tagline' quotes below (my emphasis bold) are all from this pivotal book]
with "T" which I may refer to in my book outline, "Problems of Evolution."
© Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology)
Tamarin, R.H., 2002, "Principles of Genetics," International edition, , McGraw-Hill: New York NY, Seventh edition.
Tattersall, I., 1995, "The Fossil Trail: How We Know What We Think We Know about Human Evolution," Oxford University Press: New York NY.
Tattersall, I., 1998, "Becoming Human: Evolution and Human Uniqueness," Harcourt Brace & Co: New York NY.
Tattersall, I., 2002, "The Monkey in the Mirror: Essays on the Science of What Makes Us Human," Harvest: San Diego CA.
Tattersall, I., Delson, E. & Van Couvering, J., eds, 1988, "Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory," Garland Publishing: New York NY.
Tax, S., ed., 1960a, "Evolution After Darwin: The Evolution of Life: Its Origin, History and Future," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Vol. I.
Tax, S., ed., 1960b, "Evolution After Darwin: Man, Culture and Society," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Vol. II.
Tax, S. & Callender, C., eds, 1960, "Evolution After Darwin: Issues in Evolution," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Vol. III.
Taylor, A.E., 1903, "Elements of Metaphysics," Methuen: London, Reprinted, 1961.
Taylor, F.S., 1942, "The Century of Science," , Readers Union: London, Second edition.
Taylor, G.R., 1983, "The Great Evolution Mystery," Harper & Row: New York NY.
Taylor, G.R., 1979, "The Natural History of the Mind: An Exploration," Granada: London, Reprinted, 1981.
Taylor, I.T., 1991, "In the Minds of Men Darwin and the New World Order," , TFE Publishing: Toronto, Canada, Third edition, Fifth printing, 1994.
Taylor, J.G., 1993, "When the Clock Struck Zero: Science's Ultimate Limits," Picador: London, Reprinted, 1994.
Taylor, K.N., ed., 1969, "Evolution and the High School Student," Tyndale House Publishers: Wheaton IL.
Taylor, K.N., ed., 1977, "Creation and Evolution," Tyndale House Publishers: Wheaton IL.
Taylor, R., 1983, "Metaphysics," , Prentice-Hall, Third edition.
Taylor, R., 1980, "The Story of Evolution," Ward Lock: London.
Taylor, S.R., 1998, "Destiny or Chance: Our Solar System and its Place in the Cosmos," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, Reprinted, 2000.
Teggart, F.J., 1962, "Theory and Processes of History," , University of California Press: Berkeley, Third edition.
Templeton, J.M., ed., 1994, "Evidence of Purpose: Scientists Discover the Creator," Continuum: New York NY.
Templeton, J.M. & Herrmann, R.L., 1989, "The God Who Would Be Known: Revelations of the Divine in Contemporary Science," Harper & Row: San Francisco
Templeton, J.M. & Herrmann, R.L., 1994, "Is God the Only Reality?: Science Points to a Deeper Meaning of the Universe," Continuum: New York NY.
Terrace, H.S., 1979, "Nim: A Chimpanzee Who Learned Sign Language," Eyre Methuen: London.
Thackray, J., 1980, "The Age of the Earth," Institute of Geological Sciences: London.
Thain, M. & Hickman, M., 2000, "The Penguin Dictionary of Biology," , Penguin Books: London, Tenth edition.
Thaxton, C.B., Bradley, W.L. & Olsen, R.L., 1984, "The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories," Lewis & Stanley: Dallas TX, 1992, Second printing.
Thomas, L., 1974, "The Lives of a Cell: Notes of a Biology Watcher," Futura: London, Reprinted, 1976.
Thomas, L., 1979, "The Medusa and the Snail: More Notes of a Biology Watcher," Bantam: New York NY, Reprinted, 1986.
Thompson, B., 1993, "The Scientific Case for Creation," , Apologetics Press, Montgomery AL, Revised edition.
Thompson, D.W., 1992, "On Growth and Form,", Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, Canto edition, Reprinted, 1995.
Thompson, R.F., 1976, "Progress in Psychobiology: Readings from Scientific American," W.H. Freeman & Co: San Francisco CA.
Thompson, R.L., 1981, "Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science: An Investigation into the Nature of Consciousness and Form," Bala Books: Lynbrook NY.
Thompson, W.R., 1937, "Science and Common Sense: An Aristotelian Excursion," Magi Books: Albany NY, Reprinted, 1965.
Thomson, J.A., 1925, "Science and Religion: Six lectures delivered in Union Theological Seminary, New York NY, in 1924, on the Morse Foundation," Methuen & Co: London.
Thorpe, W. H., 1978, "Purpose in a World of Chance: A Biologist's View," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK.
Thouless, R.H., 1953, "Straight and Crooked Thinking," , Pan: London, Revised edition, Fifteenth printing, 1973.
Thurman, L.D., 1978, "How to Think about Evolution & Other Bible-Science Controversies," , InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second edition, Second printing, 1979.
Tiger, L. & Fox, R., 1972, "The Imperial Animal," Paladin: St Albans UK, Reprinted, 1974.
Tilby, A., 1992, "Soul: God, Self, and the New Cosmology," Doubleday: New York NY, Reprinted, 1993.
Tinbergen, N., 1970, "Animal Behaviour," , Time-Life Books: Amsterdam, Revised edition.
Tomkins, S., 1998, "The Origins of Humankind," , Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, Second edition.
Toole, G. & Toole, S., 1987, "Understanding Biology for Advanced Level," Hutchinson: London.
Tootill, E., ed., 1981, "The Pan Dictionary of Biology," Pan: London, Reprinted, 1990.
Torrance, J.B., et al., "Where Science and Faith Meet: Five Broadcast Talks," , Inter-Varsity Fellowship: London, Reprinted, 1966.
Tortora, G.J. , Funke, B.R. & Case, C.L., 1995, "Microbiology: An Introduction," Benjamin/Cummings: Redwood City CA, , Fourth edition.
Toulmin, S.E. & Goodfield, J., 1961, "The Fabric of the Heavens," Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, Reprinted, 1963.
Trefil, J.S., 1983, "The Moment of Creation: Big Bang Physics From Before the First Millisecond to the Present Universe," Charles Scribner's Sons: New York NY.
Trefil, J.S., 1992, "1001 Things Everyone Should Know About Science," Cassell: London, Reprinted, 1994.
Trigg, R., 1993, "Rationality and Science: Can Science Explain Everything?," Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1994.
Trinkaus, E. & Shipman, P., 1993, "The Neandertals: Changing the Image of Mankind," Pimlico: London.
Trivers, R.L., 1985, "Social Evolution," Benjamin/Cummings: Menlo Park CA.
Tudge, C., 1991, "Global Ecology," Natural History Museum: London.
Tudge, C., 1993, "The Engineer in the Garden: Genetics: From the Idea of Heredity to the Creation of Life." Pimlico: London, Reprinted, 1995.
Tudge, C., 1996, "The Time Before History: 5 Million Years of Human Impact," Scribner: New York NY.
Turrill, W.B., 1963, "Joseph Dalton Hooker: Botanist, Explorer, and Administrator," Thomas Nelson & Sons: London.
Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blog: TheShroudofTurin
"In 1953, few if any were troubled by the tension between the new insights of Crick and Watson [Watson, J.D. & Crick, F.H., "Molecular structure of Nucleic Acids," Nature, Vol. 171, 1953, pp.737-738] on the one hand and Miller's [Miller, S.L., "A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions," Science, Vol. 117, pp.528-529] results on the other. ... In the decades since Miller's and Crick and Watson's reports, however, there have been indications that all is not well in the halls of biology. We have gained a far deeper appreciation of the extremely complex macromolecules such as proteins and nucleic acids. The enlarged understanding of these complexities has precipitated new suggestions that the DNA mechanism may be more complex and the molecular organization more intricate and information-filled than was previously thought. The impressive complexities of proteins, nucleic acids, and other biological molecules are presently developed in nature only in living things. Unless it is assumed such complexity has always been present in an infinitely old universe, there must have been a time in the past when life appeared de novo out of lifeless, inert matter. How can the mere interaction of simple chemicals in the primordial ocean have produced life as it is presently understood? That is the question. The signs do not bode well for the standard answers given, and some investigators are suggesting that our two approaches will not converge." (Thaxton, C.B., Bradley, W.L. & Olsen, R.L., 1984, "The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories," Lewis & Stanley: Dallas TX, Second Printing, 1992, p.2).
"The Demise of the Role of Chance By 1966 a major change in scientific thought was underway. In Philadelphia a symposium was held to highlight these changes. [Moorhead, P.S. & Kaplan, M.M., eds., "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution," Wistar Institute: Philadelphia PA, 1967] It was there that signs of an impending crisis first emerged. Symposium participants came together to discuss the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. One conclusion, expressed in the words of Murray Eden of MIT, was the need `to relegate the notion of randomness to a minor and non-crucial role' [Eden, M., "Heresy in the Halls of Biology," Scientific Research, November 1967, p.59] in our theories of origins. This conclusion was based on probability theory, which shows mathematically the odds against the chance formation of the highly complex molecular structure required for life. With the help of high-speed computers, programs could be run which simulated the billions-of-years' process based on the neo-Darwinian model of evolution. The results showed that the complexity of the biochemical world could not have originated by chance even within a time span of ten billion years. Eden's conclusion was a reasonable if unsettling one." (Thaxton, et al., 1984, pp.2-3. Emphasis original).
"Other symposium participants voiced similar views about chance or randomness. V.F. Weisskopf noted, `There is some suspicion that an essential point [about our theories of origins] is still missing.' [Weisskopf, V.F., in Moorhead, & Kaplan, 1967, p.100.] Eden suggested `new laws' as the missing piece in the puzzle of life's origin. [Eden, M., ibid, p.109] In his opening remarks as chairman, Nobel Prize-winning biologist Sir Peter Medawar said, `There is a pretty wide spread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought of as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory.' [Medawar, P, ibid, p.xi] It was Marcel Schutzenberger of the University of Paris, however, who intimated the true extent of the developing crisis when he expressed his belief that the problem of origins `cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology'. [Schutzenberger, M.P., ibid, p.73] (Emphasis added). These comments reflect the impotence of chance or randomness as a creative mechanism for life's origin. " (Thaxton, et al., 1984, p.3).
"The study of chemical evolution is strikingly similar to forensic science. Consistent with the uniformitarian view that life arose through processes still going on, numerous investigators have reported on laboratory observations and experiments which they offer as circumstantial evidence for the naturalistic origin of life. Though the conditions of the early earth are assumed to have been different from today's conditions, the processes are assumed to have been the same. According to this uniformitarian thinking, if we can reproduce in our laboratories today conditions as they were in the remote past, we should expect to obtain the kinds of changes that occurred then. This is the basis of prebiotic simulation experiments reported in chemical evolution literature. `Implicit in this [uniformitarian] assumption is the requirement that no supernatural agency "entered nature" at the time of the origin, was crucial to it, and then withdrew from history.' [Kenyon, D.H. & Steinman, G., "Biochemical Predestination," McGraw-Hill: New York, 1969, p.30]. (Actually all that is required for this assumption is that no intelligent-purposive-interruption or manipulation of the workings of natural forces ever occurred at the time of life's origin or since.)." (Thaxton, et al , 1984, pp.7-8).
"Concentrating Little Ponds The realization that an organic soup would have been too dilute for direct formation of polymers may seem devastating to chemical evolution views. However, as Bernal has written, `The original concept of the primitive soup must be rejected only in so far as it applies to oceans or large volumes of water, and interest must be transferred to reactions in more limited zones.' [Bernal, J.D., "Thermodynamics and kinetics of spontaneous generation," Nature, Vol. 186, 28 May 1960, p.694]. By this he meant lakes, pools, lagoons, and the like. These more limited zones might then have been the locus of life's origin rather than the ocean. The significance of these local places is their associated mechanisms for concentrating essential chemicals. By concentrating the monomers, the probability of their molecular interaction would have been increased, thus increasing reaction rates according to the law of mass action." (Thaxton, et al., 1984, pp.61-62. Emphasis original).
"Critique of Concentrating Mechanism There is no known geological evidence for organic pools, concentrated by these or other mechanisms, ever existing on this planet. ... Still, if by some means concentrated pools did develop, not only would the desired materials concentrate, but also the undesirable impurities. For example, an evaporating pond concentrating nonvolatiles such as amino acids would also concentrate sea salts such as NaCl ... Salt has greater affinity for water than do these organic compounds. Therefore, in order for the salt to be dissolved the organic compounds must precipitate out of solution. It is another type of `impurity,' however, that would have been the greatest obstacle to the successful concentration of organic compounds in limited zones. This would be the host of oceanic organic compounds such as amines, amino acids, aldehydes, ketones, sugars, carboxylic acids, etc. that would have destructively interacted in the ocean. The usual consequences of concentrating these would be, according to the law of mass action, merely an acceleration of the many destructive reactions (as well as the constructive reactions) that would also occur at slower rates in the more dilute ocean, as already discussed. ... Stemming from this discussion, however, it is our observation that what is needed is a natural sorting mechanism. The problem demands a means of selecting organic compounds and isolating them from other chemicals with which they could destructively interact. Yet there is nothing (but the need) to suggest that such a sorting mechanism ever existed on this planet. In other words, for these more limited zones (e.g., lakes, pools, lagoons), as for the ocean itself, it is difficult to imagine significant concentrations of essential organic compounds ever accumulating. As we have seen, degradative forces need to be taken into account in realistic estimates of concentrations, and they have frequently been ignored." (Thaxton, et al., 1984, pp.64-66. Emphasis original).
"Based on the foregoing geochemical assessment, we conclude that both in the atmosphere and in the various water basins of the primitive earth, many destructive interactions would have so vastly diminished, if not altogether consumed, essential precursor chemicals, that chemical evolution rates would have been negligible. The soup would have been too dilute for direct polymerization to occur. Even local ponds for concentrating soup ingredients would have met with the same problem. Furthermore, no geological evidence indicates an organic soup, even a small organic pond, ever existed on this planet. It is becoming clear that however life began on earth, the usually conceived notion that life emerged from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis. We may therefore with fairness call this scenario `the myth of the prebiotic soup.'" (Thaxton, et al, 1984, p.66).
"Three relevant questions have been considered ... First, we considered the time available for chemical evolution. It was determined on the basis of evidence from molecular fossils and microfossils that the origin of life occurred almost instantaneously (geologically speaking), just after the earth's crust cooled and stabilized about 4.0 billion years ago. This leaves little more than 100 million years (if that) for any chemical evolution to occur. Second the early atmosphere of the earth was examined and found not to be the strongly reducing atmosphere popularized for the past thirty years. Instead, the consensus of scientists about the early atmosphere is shifting. At the time of this writing, there is wide agreement in adopting a more neutral primitive atmosphere consisting of CO2, N2, H2O, and perhaps 1% H2. There is a current controversy concerning whether the early earth and its atmosphere might actually have been oxidizing. Third, we examined the important question of the oxygen content of the early earth. ... The accumulating evidence for an oxygenic early earth and atmosphere heightens the mystery of life's origin. If this type of evidence continues to accumulate, chemical evolution theories may have to appeal to the random occurrence of fluctuating or localized reducing environments on the primitive earth. Such microenvironments could have been present (as shown by reduced minerals), but were they suitable or maintained long enough for the formation of life? The odds of finding such a suitable niche on the primitive earth or a sufficient length of time are extremely small." (Thaxton, et al., 1984, pp.93-94).
"Traps All prebiotic heat, electrical discharge, and ultraviolet light (including photosensitization) experiments use traps. Traps allow for greater yields of product from equilibrium reactions in which dissolution would otherwise far outweigh synthesis ... Traps function by continually removing the small fraction of product formed by the reactions. As products are removed from the zone of their formation, additional reaction is continuously required to reestablish equilibrium. In this way, reactions can be productively prolonged until one of the reactants is finally consumed. ... Like the practice of concentrating chemical reactants, this technique is a legitimate means of collapsing time to manageable amounts. This removal process also shields the products from subsequent destruction by the energy source which produced them. However, Carl Sagan has aptly commented on this shielding effect in the experiments:
The problem we're discussing is a very general one. We use energy sources to make organic molecules. It is found that the same energy sources can destroy these organic molecules. The organic chemist has an understandable preference for removing the reaction products from the energy source before they are destroyed. But when we talk of the origin of life, I think we should not neglect the fact that degradation occurs as well as synthesis, and that the course of reaction may be different if the products are not preferentially removed. In reconstructing the origin of life, we have to imagine reasonable scenarios which somehow avoid this difficulty. (Emphasis added.)' [Sagan, C., in Fox, S.W., ed., "The Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices," Academic Press: New York, 1965, pp.195-196]
(Thaxton, et al., 1984, pp.102-103. Emphasis original).
"The Concerto Effect Laboratory simulation experiments are usually carried out by employing one of various energy sources in isolation. This is a legitimate procedure since what is sought is the relative effect of each energy source. It is true, too, that the total effect is merely the sum of the effects of isolated energy sources. What often gets ignored, however, is that not only are the synthetic effects summed, but the destructive effects also. ... these energy sources act together or in concert in the natural situation, both in synthesis and destruction of organic compounds. One energy source destroys what another source produces. Destruction predominates! Protection from energy sources is not the only concern. Many laboratory experiments use carefully selected, highly purified, and often concentrated reactants in solutions isolated from other constituents of the soup mixture. ... if a chemical reaction occurs slowly in dilute solution (viz., the primitive ocean), it will occur much more rapidly in concentrated solution (viz., the investigator's flask). In this way, investigators seek to compress into manageable laboratory time chemical reactions that normally would have taken millions of years. ... even if natural concentrating mechanisms were not effective on the early earth." (Thaxton, et al., 1984, p.104. Emphasis original).
"Isolated Reactants Practically all simulated ocean experiments reported in the scientific literature have been based on the assumption that if two or three chemicals react when isolated from the soup mixture, they will also react in the same way in the presence of diverse chemicals in the soup. ... In spite of the fact that the procedure of isolating reactants is almost universally used and assumed to be valid, for all practical purposes, this assumption is false in the general case. It is false because it overlooks the synergism of multiple reactions, the Concerto Effect. A mixture has a characteristic behavior of its own; it is not the simple sum of its individual components. All components in a mixture have definite affinities for reacting with each other. Consequently, soup mixture reactions do not equal the sum of the individual isolated reactions. ...substance A might react with substance B when isolated from substances C, D, and E. When all these substances are mixed together, however, competing reactions can be envisioned which assure that virtually no product accumulates from the reaction . between A and B. Also, the reaction between A and B may begin as it would in isolation, only to be interrupted at some later step. Simulation experiments have thus produced some products which conceivably would never occur in the primitive soup." (Thaxton, et al., 1984, pp.104-105. Emphasis original).
"Geochemical plausibility scale for evaluating prebiotic simulation experiments. Experimental techniques (conditions) are arranged according to the degree of investigator interference. At some point along the scale investigator involvement reaches a threshold, beyond which investigator interference is illegitimate. ... Continuing up the scale, we come to spark and shock wave experiments, each used in isolation from other energy sources. We rank these experiments more implausible than those whose success is dependent on higher concentration of chemicals, because no conceivable natural means for isolating energy sources is known. Use of both heat and selected wavelengths of UV light is more implausible still. Not only is there the lack of means for isolating them from other energy sources, but greater doubt arises about their geochemical plausibility. It may be argued that using energy in spark experiments several orders of magnitude greater than could have existed on the early earth merely `speeds up' the process. No comparable argument applies for heat. For example, increasing temperature to 1000°C not only accelerates reaction rates, but destroys organic products. In the case of ultraviolet light, there is no natural filter known that would justify use of selected wavelengths (i.e., < 2000 Å) of light while excluding the longer wavelengths more destructive to some essential organic compounds. Finally, to indicate greatest geochemical implausibility, we put experiments using selected chemicals, isolated from other soup ingredients, at the top of the scale. It is difficult to tell whether use of selected wavelengths of UV is more plausible than the use of isolated chemicals. In any case, we believe both are very implausible conditions." (Thaxton, et al., 1984, pp.106-107).
"Determining Acceptable Investigator Involvement When does experimenter interference become illegitimate? As basic as this question is to the discussion of simulation experiments, it is very seldom mentioned as a problem. ... Since all experiments are performed by an experimenter, they must involve investigator intervention. Yet experiments must be disqualified as prebiotic simulations when a certain class of investigator influence is crucial to their success. This is seen by analogy to the generally held requirement that no outside or supernatural agency was allowed to enter nature at the time of life's origin, was crucial to it, and then withdrew from history. [Kenyon, D.H. & Steinman, G., "Biochemical Predestination," McGraw-Hill: New York, 1969, p.30] We can apply this principle through a careful extension of the analogy. In the preparation of a prebiotic simulation experiment, the investigator creates the setting, supplies the aqueous medium, the energy, the chemicals, and establishes the boundary conditions. This activity produces the general background conditions for the experiment, and while it is crucial to the success of the experiment, it is quite legitimate because it simulates plausible early earth conditions. The interference of the investigator becomes crucial in an illegitimate sense, however wherever laboratory conditions are not warranted by analogy to reliably plausible features of the early earth itself. Thus the illegitimate intervention of the investigator is directly proportional to the geochemical implausibility of the condition arising from experimental design and/or the investigator's procedure, the illegitimate interference being greatest when such plausibility is missing altogether. With this in mind, it seems reasonable to suggest that permissible interference by the investigator would include developing plausible design features of the experiment, adjusting the initial reaction mixture, beginning the input of free energy to drive the reaction at the outset, and performing whatever minimal disturbance to the system is necessary to withdraw portions of the reaction products at various stages for analysis. Usually, in laboratory experiments, an experimenter employs a host of manipulative interventions in an effort to guide natural processes down specific nonrandom chemical pathways. In other words it is the character of the constraint that determines the result. In some chemical syntheses, for example, it may be necessary to combine reactants in a particular order, or vary the rates of addition in order to control temperature, to adjust pH at a crucial color change, to remove products of reaction after ten minutes instead of twenty minutes, etc., etc. Such manipulations are the hallmark of intelligent, exogenous interference and should not be employed in any prebiotic experiment. The arrangement of experimental techniques (conditions) ... represents a scale or continuum of investigator interference. At some point on the scale, a degree of implausibility is reached where the experiment can no longer be considered acceptable. Beyond that point, there is no analogy between the techniques and reliably plausible prebiotic conditions. The experimenter who deviates from plausible conditions is like an actor who has forgotten his lines and begins to ad-lib. Such techniques constitute illegitimate interference, and cannot be given the same status as those lying within the threshold of acceptability." (Thaxton, et al., 1984, pp.108-109. Emphasis original).
"Summarizing the above discussion it is our view that for each of the experimental techniques (conditions) listed as being above the line of crucial but acceptable interference, the investigator has played a highly significant but illegitimate role in experimental success. Brooks and Shaw have commented on this after a review of abiotic experiments:
These experiments ... claim abiotic synthesis for what has in fact been produced and designed by highly intelligent and very much biotic man.' [Brooks, J. & Shaw, G., "Origin and Development of Living Systems," Academic Press: New York, 1973, p.212]
In other words, for each of the unacceptable experimental techniques, the investigator has established experimental constraints, imposing intelligent influence upon a supposedly `prebiotic earth.' Where this informative intervention of the investigator is ignored, the illusion of prebiotic simulation is fostered. This unfortunate state of affairs will continue until the community of origin-of-life researchers agree on criteria for experiment acceptability. If the techniques representing investigator interference are to be afforded the status of valid simulation, the burden must remain with the investigators to demonstrate their plausibility. This is nothing more than the demand of good science." (Thaxton, et al., 1984, p.110).
"Morowitz [Morowitz, H.J., "Energy Flow in Biology," Academic Press: New York, 1968, p.66] has estimated the increase in the chemical bonding energy as one forms the bacterium Escherichia coli from simple precursors to be 0.0095 erg, or an average of 0.27 ev/atom for the 2 x 1010 atoms in a single bacterial cell. This would be thermodynamically equivalent to having water in your bathtub spontaneously heat up to 360 degrees C, happily a most unlikely event." (Thaxton, et al., 1984, p.121).
"One way out of the problem would be to extend the concept of natural selection to the pre-living world of molecules. A number of authors have entertained this possibility, although no reasonable explanation has made the suggestion plausible. Natural selection is a recognized principle of differential reproduction which presupposes the existence of at least two distinct types of self-replicating molecules. Dobzhansky appealed to those doing origin-of-life research not to tamper with the definition of natural selection when he said: `I would like to plead with you, simply, please realize you cannot use the words `natural selection' loosely. Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction in terms.' [Dobzhansky, T.G., in Fox, ibid, p.310] Bertalanffy made the point even more cogently: `Selection, i.e., favored survival of "better" precursors of life, already presupposes self-maintaining, complex, open systems which may compete; therefore selection cannot account for the origin of such systems' [von Bertalanffy L., "Robots, Men and Minds," George Braziller: New York NY, 1967, p.82]" (Thaxton, et al., 1984, p.147).
"We believe the problem is analogous to that of the medieval alchemist who was commissioned to change copper into gold. Energy flow through a system can do chemical work and produce an otherwise improbable distribution of energy in the system (e.g., a water heater). Thermal entropy, however, seems to be physically independent from the information content of living systems which we have analyzed and called configurational entropy. As was pointed out, Yockey has noted that negative thermodynamic entropy (thermal) has nothing to do with information, and no amount of energy flow through the system and negative thermal entropy generation can produce even a small amount of information. You can't get gold out of copper, apples out of oranges, or information out of negative thermal entropy. There does not seem to be any physical basis for the widespread assumption implicit in the idea that an open system is a sufficient explanation for the complexity of life. As we have previously noted, there is neither a theoretical nor an experimental basis for this hypothesis. There is no hint in our experience of any mechanistic means of supplying the necessary configurational entropy work. Enzymes and human intelligence, however, do it routinely."(Thaxton, et al., 1984, p.183).
"One characteristic feature of the above critique needs to be emphasized. We have not simply picked out a number of details within chemical evolution theory that are weak, or without adequate explanation for the moment. For the most part this critique is based on crucial weaknesses intrinsic to the theory itself. Often it is contended that criticism focuses on present ignorance `Give us more time to solve the problems,' is the plea. After all, the pursuit of abiogenesis is young as a scientific enterprise. It will be claimed that many of these problems are mere state-of-the-art gaps. And, surely some of them are. Notice, however, that the sharp edge of this critique is not what we do not know, but what we do know. Many facts have come to light in the past three decades of experimental inquiry into life's beginning. With each passing year the criticism has gotten stronger. The advance of science itself is what is challenging the nation that life arose on earth by spontaneous (in a thermodynamic sense) chemical reactions." (Thaxton, et al., 1984, p.185. Emphasis original).
"Over the years a slowly emerging line or boundary has appeared which shows observationally the limits of what can be expected from matter and energy left to themselves, and what can be accomplished only through what Michael Polanyi has called `a profoundly informative intervention.' [Polanyi, M., "Life Transcending Physics and Chemistry," Chemical Engineering News, August 21, 1967, pp.54-66, p.54]. When it is acknowledged that most so-called prebiotic simulation experiments actually owe their success to the crucial but illegitimate role of the investigator, a new and fresh phase of the experimental approach to life's origin can then be entered. Until then however, the literature of chemical evolution will probably continue to be dominated by reports of experiments in which the investigator, like a metabolizing Maxwell Demon, will have performed work on the system through intelligent, exogenous intervention. Such work establishes experimental boundary conditions, and imposes intelligent influence/control over a supposedly `prebiotic' earth. As long as this informative interference of the investigator is ignored, the illusion of prebiotic simulation will be fostered. We would predict that this practice will prove to be a barrier to solving the mystery of life's origin." (Thaxton, et al., 1984, p.185. Emphasis original).
"Special Creation by a Creator Beyond the Cosmos ?. Special Creation by a Creator beyond the cosmos holds there was once a time in the past when matter was in a simple arrangement, inert and lifeless. Then at a later time matter was in the state of biological specificity sufficient for bearing and sustaining life. Special Creation (whether from within the cosmos or beyond it) differs from abiogenesis in holding that the source which produced life was intelligent. Throughout history, many writers have attempted to describe the work of the Creator. What they all seem to hold in common is the idea that an intelligent Creator informed inert matter by shaping it as a potter fashions clay. Some representations are quite anthropomorphic, others less so. But there is considerable agreement that somehow an active intellect produced life." (Thaxton, et al., 1984, p.200).
"Operation Science and the God Hypothesis It is widely appreciated that from its beginning modern science has been concerned with finding and describing orderly pattern in the recurring events of nature. To do this a well-defined method is used. Data are gathered through observation and experimentation. As data are gathered, theories are proposed to explain the behavior or operation of the phenomena investigated. ... Notice, however, that this approach to testing theories only works if there is some pattern of recurring events against which theories can be checked and falsified if they are false. Through repeated observation attention is focused on a class of events, each of which is similar. The equations describing the behavior of the class would be applicable to any of its individual members. ... Such theories are operation theories. That is, they refer to the ongoing operation of the universe. We shall call the domain of operation theories operation science for these theories are concerned with the recurring phenomena of nature. Examples of operation science include the recurring motion of planets about the sun, the swinging of a pendulum, the parabolic trajectory of a cannonball, a single cell turning by stages into a fully formed organism, the recurrent cubic structure of table salt crystallizing out of water solution and the migration of a Monarch butterfly. These and many other phenomena have been accounted for in the language of operation science. Because of its familiarity and long, successful history, it is surely what most people think of when they think about science." (Thaxton, et al.,1984, p.203. Emphasis original).
"Origin Science On the other hand an understanding of the universe includes some singular events, such as origins. Unlike the recurrent operation of the universe, origins cannot be repeated for experimental test. The beginning of life, for example, just won't repeat itself so we can test our theories. In the customary language of science, theories of origins (origin science) cannot be falsified by empirical test if they are false, as can theories of operation science. How then are origins investigated? The method of approach is appropriately modified to deal with unrepeatable singular events. The investigation of origins may be compared to sleuthing an unwitnessed murder ... Such scenarios of reconstruction may be deemed plausible or implausible. Hypotheses of origin science, however, are not empirically testable or falsifiable since the datum needed for experimental test (namely, the origin) is unavailable. In contrast to operation science where the focus is on a class of many events, origin science is concerned with a particular event, i.e., a class of one. ... Pasteur's falsification of spontaneous generation was possible only because it was said to recur in the domain of operation science. Appropriate testing against nature falsified the notion of spontaneous generation. The best we can ever hope to achieve with wrong ideas about origins is to render them implausible. By the nature of the case, true falsification is out of the question." (Thaxton, et al.,1984, p.204. Emphasis original).
"In spite of this fundamental difference between origin science and operation science, there is today very little recognition of it, and an almost universal convention of excluding the divine from origin science as well as from operation science. This has occurred without any careful prior analysis of the problem to see if the exclusion is valid in the case of origin science. It seems to have been merely assumed. An example of this exclusion by assumption instead of valid argument comes from this statement by Orgel: `Any "living" system must come into existence either as a consequence of a long evolutionary process or a miracle.... Since, as scientists, we must not postulate miracles we must suppose that the appearance of "life" is necessarily preceded by a period of evolution.' [Orgel, L.E., "The Origins of Life," John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1973, p. 192] We agree with Orgel that miracles must not be posited for operation science. We disagree with Orgel however, and others, when it is merely assumed that the exclusion of the divine from origin science is valid. This has not been demonstrated." (Thaxton, et al.,1984, pp.204-205. Emphasis original).
"Metaphysical Commitment vs. Unreason If metaphysical positions have such a controlling influence ... this raises a practical question. In the face of contradictory evidence, when is one to be praised for metaphysical commitments and chided for unreasonable faith? The answer one gives to this question depends in large measure on the metaphysical stance already adopted. To illustrate, consider George Wald's discussion of how biologists responded after Pasteur's refutation of spontaneous generation. Says Wald: `We tell this story [of Pasteur's experiments] to beginning students of biology as though it represents a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position.' [Wald, G., "The Origin of Life", in Folsome, C.E., ed., "Life: Origin and Evolution," Readings from Scientific American, W.H. Freeman: San Francisco CA, 1979, p.47]. Wald is saying that there are times when it is clearly unreasonable to follow the evidence where it leads. When? Those times when following the evidence would lead one to the supernatural. This is an example of metaphysical commitment to naturalism in the face of contradictory evidence." (Thaxton, et al.,1984, pp.208-209. Emphasis original).
"Clair E. Folsome represents another example of commitment to metaphysical naturalism in spite of contradictory evidence. Folsome critiqued the abiogenesis that Wald had upheld. Folsome pointed out the extreme dilution of the primitive soup, the scarcity of organic nitrogen in the early sediments, and the grave deficiencies in the concentration mechanism proposed for the primitive water basins. He then noted: `Every time we examine the specifics of the theories presented by Oparin and Bernal, current information seems to contradict them.' [Folsome, C.E., "Introduction," in Folsome, ed., 1979, pp.2-4, p.3] Does Folsome then entertain doubt as to the plausibility of the Oparin-Bernal hypothesis? No. This also is apparently a time when it would be unreasonable to follow the evidence where it leads. Instead, Folsome expresses his commitment, `yet, in the main, they were right [in postulating that some sort of chemical evolution had occurred]...their models were wrong, but the central theme they pursued seems even more right now than before.' [Ibid., p.3] (Emphasis added.)" (Thaxton, et al.,1984, p.208. Emphasis original).
"Special Creation and the Evidence Special Creation by a Creator beyond the cosmos envisions a prepared earth with oxidizing conditions, an earth ready to receive life. It is suggestive then that there has been accumulating evidence for an oxidizing early earth and atmosphere. If the early earth were really oxidizing it would not only support creation, it would also be difficult to even imagine chemical evolution. Similarly, the short time interval (< 170 my) between earth's cooling and the earliest evidence of life supports the notion of creation. And, of course, if life were really created it would account for there being so little nitrogen in Precambrian sediments (there never was a prebiotic soup). In addition, Special Creation accords well with the observed boundary between what has been done in the laboratory by abiotic means and what has been done only through interference by the experimenter. If an intelligent Creator produced the first life, then it may well be true that this observed boundary in the laboratory is real, and will persist independent of experimental progress or new discoveries about natural processes. Also an intelligent Creator could conceivably accomplish the quite considerable configurational entropy work necessary to build informational macromolecules and construct true cells. As Fong has said: `the question of the ultimate source of information is not trivial. In fact it is the basic and central philosophical and theoretical problem. The essence of the theory of Divine Creation is that the ultimate source of information has a separate, independent existence beyond and before the material system, this being the main point of the Johannine Prologue.' [Fong, P., in Locker, A., ed., "Biogenesis, Evolution, Homeostasis," Springer-Verlag: New York, 1973, p. 93]" (Thaxton, et al.,1984, pp.209-210. Emphasis original).
"It is doubtful that any would deny that an intelligent Creator could conceivably prepare earth with oxidizing conditions and create life. And, of course, the data discussed above are consistent (and compatible} with this view of Special Creation. What we would like to know, of course, is whether an intelligent Creator did create life. The question, unfortunately, is beyond the power of science to answer. Another question which can be answered, however, is whether such a view as Special Creation is plausible ... How then does one determine whether an origin science scenario is plausible? The principles of causality and uniformity are used. Cause means that necessary and sufficient condition that alone can explain the occurrence of a given event. By the principle of uniformity is meant that the kinds of causes we observe producing certain effects today can be counted on to have produced similar effects in the past. We an go back into the past with some measure of plausibility only by assuming the kind of cause needed to produce that kind of effect in the present was also needed to produce it in the past. In other words `the present is a key to the past.' As we saw, this is how scientists have arrived at the reconstructed scenario of a prebiotic earth. What makes views of abiogenesis legitimate as origin science then is the assumed legitimacy of cause-effect reasoning and the principle of uniformity. The dilemma for chemical evolution, however, has been failure to identify any contemporary example of specified complexity ... arising by abiotic causes. What is needed is to identify in the present an abiotic cause of specified complexity. This would then provide a basis for extrapolating its use into the past as a conceivable abiotic cause for supplying the configuration entropy work in the synthesis of primitive DNA, protein, and cells. The failure to identify such a contemporary abiotic cause of specified complexity is yet another way to support our conclusion that chemical evolution is an implausible hypothesis." (Thaxton, et al.,1984, p.210. Emphasis original).
"Consider, for example, the matter of accounting for the informational molecule, DNA. We have observational evidence in the present that intelligent investigators can (and do) build contrivances to channel energy down non-random chemical pathways to bring about some complex chemical synthesis, even gene building. May not the principle of uniformity then be used in a broader frame of consideration to suggest that DNA had an intelligent cause at the beginning? Usually the answer given is no. But theoretically, at least, it would seem the answer should be yes in order to avoid the charge that the deck is stacked in favor of naturalism. We know that in numerous cases certain effects always have intelligent causes, such as dictionaries, sculptures, machines and paintings we reason by analogy that similar effects also have intelligent causes. For example, after looking up to see `BUY FORD' spelled out in smoke across the sky we infer the presence of a skywriter even if we heard or saw no airplane. We would similarly conclude; the presence of intelligent activity were we to come upon an elephant-shaped topiary in a cedar forest. In like manner an intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of and intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence [Yockey, H.P., "Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory," J. Theoret. Biol. Vol. 91, 1981, p. 13]. The so-called Shannon information laws apply equally to the genetic code and to the Morse code. True, our knowledge of intelligence has been restricted to biology-based advanced organisms, but it is currently argued by some that intelligence exists in complex non-biological computer circuitry. If our minds are capable of imagining intelligence freed from biology in this sense, then why not in the sense of an intelligent being before biological life existed?" (Thaxton, et al., 1984, pp.210-211. Emphasis original).
Post a Comment