The probabilities associated with abiogenesis are high, yes, but not as high as creationists seem to think, and they don’t need super pure materials either.
The big mistake creationists make when thinking about abiogenesis and evolution is they think everything has to happen in a single step rather than cumulatively. Any chemist will admit the odds of individual atoms suddenly coming together and forming a molecule of RNA are absolutely astronomical, but that’s not how it’s postulated that the first self-replicating molecules came about. It was more of a cumulative process, and the odds wouldn’t be nearly as great.
The earth is a big place, and geologic time is immense (4.5 billion years is 45 million centuries), so with a batch of impure chemicals churning away in vast oceans of primordial soup for a billion years, it’s not unlikely that a primitive self-replicating molecule will form. Once that happens, evolution takes over and a few hundred million years later we have the first primitive cell–it’s just chemistry–no cartoon magic man required.
Basically, this is yet another variation on the Serial Trials Fallacy, combined with either a complete failure to understand basic chemistry, or wilfully duplicitous disregard thereof.
I’ll begin my exposition with:
The Serial Trials Fallacy
Basically, the Serial Trials Fallacy consists of assuming that only one participant in an interacting system is performing the necessary task at any one time. While this may be true for a lone experimenter engaged in a coin tossing exercise, this is assuredly NOT true of any system involving chemical reactions, which involves untold billions of atoms or molecules at any given moment. This of course has import for abiogenesis as well, against which bad probability calculations and the Serial Trials Fallacy are routinely deployed. I shall concentrate here on abiogenetic scenarios, but what follows applies equally to nuclear DNA replication and any absurd arguments based upon bad probability calculations and the Serial Trials Fallacy that mutations cannot occur in a given amount of time.
The idea is simply this. If you only have one participant in the system in question, and the probability of the desired outcome is small, then it will take a long time for that outcome to appear among the other outcomes. But, if you have billions of participants in the system in question, all acting simultaneously, then even a low-probability outcome will occur a lot more quickly.
For example, if I perform trials that consist of ten coin tosses in a row per trial, and this takes about 20 seconds, then I’m going to take a long time to arrive at 10 heads in a row, because the probability is indeed 1/(210) = 1/1024. In accordance with a basic law of probability, namely that if the probability of the event is P, the number of serial trials required will be 1/P, I shall need to conduct 1,024 serial trials to obtain 10 heads in a row (averaged over the long term of course) and at 1 trial every 20 seconds, this will take me about six days, if all I do is toss coins without any breaks for sleep, food or other necessary biological functions. If, however, I co-opt 1,024 people to perform these trials in parallel, at least one of them should arrive at 10 heads from the very outset. If I manage by some logistical wonder to co-opt the entire population of China to toss coins in this fashion, then with a billion people tossing the coins, we should see 1,000,000,000/1024, which gives us 976,562 Chinese coin tossers who should see 10 heads in a row out of the total 1,000,000,000 Chinese.
Now given that the number of molecules in any given reaction even in relatively dilute solutions is large (a 1 molar solution contains 6.023 × 1023 particles of interest per litre of solution, be they atoms, molecules or whatever) then we have scope for some serious participating numbers in terms of parallel trials. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument in a typical prebiotic scenario, that only the top 100 metres of ocean depth is available for parallel trials of this kind (which is a restriction that may prove to be too restrictive once the requisite experimental data are in from various places around the world with respect to this, and of course totally ignores processes around volcanic black smokers in deep ocean waters that could also fuel abiogenetic reactions) and we further assume that the concentration of substancers of interest is only of the order of millimoles per litre, then that still leaves us with the following calculation:
[1] Mean radius of Earth = 6,371,000 m, and 100 m down, that radius is 6,370,900 m
[2] Volume of sea water of interest is therefore 4/3π(R3-r3)
which equals 5.1005 × 1016 m3
1 litre of solution of 1 mmol l-1 will contain 6.023 × 1020 reacting particles of interest, which means that 1 m3 of solution will contain 6.023 × 1026 particles, and therefore the number of particles in the 100 metre layer of ocean around the world will be 3.0730 × 1043 particles. So already we’re well into the territory where our number of parallel trials will make life a little bit easier. At this juncture, if we have this many interacting particles, then any reaction outcome that is computed to have a probability of greater than 1/(3.073 ×1043) is inevitable with the first reaction sequence.
Now, of course, this assumes that the reactions in question are, to use that much abused word by reality denialists, “random” (though their usage of this word tends to be woefully non-rigorous at the best of times). However, chemical reactions are not “random” by any stretch of the imagination (we wouldn’t be able to do chemistry if they were!), which means that once we factor that into the picture alongside the fact that a parallel trial involving massive numbers of reacting molecules is taking place, the spurious nature of these probabilistic arguments against evolution rapidly become apparent.
The same parallel trials of course take place in reproducing populations of organisms. Of course, the notion falsely propagated by reality denialists is that we have to wait for one particular organism to develop one particular mutation, and that this is somehow “improbable”. Whereas what we really have to wait for is any one organism among untold millions, or even billions, to develop that mutation, for evolution to have something to work with. If that mutation is considered to have a probability of 1/109, then we only have to wait for 109 DNA replications in germ cells to take place before that mutation happens. If our working population of organisms is already comprised of 1 billion individuals (last time I checked, the world human population had exceeded 6.6 billion) then that mutation is inevitable.
Now, having dealt with the Serial Trials Fallacy, I’ll turn everyone’s attention to the fact that chemical reactions are well-defined processes, that will occur between relevant chemical species if the energy conditions favour this. I’ll introduce everyone to key concepts at this point, namely bond energy and enthalpy.
Evrey chemical bond between two atoms has an energy associated with it. This is the energy required to break that bond. To make life easier calculation wise, this is usually specified as the amount of energy required to break a mole of the chemical bonds in question, because that energy is frequently in the region of kilojoules, and can therefore be measured very easily in, say, a bomb calorimeter. However, divide that energy by the number of bonds in a mole, and the energy per individual bond is tiny. For example, to break a mole of C-H bonds in, for example, a mole of methane, requires 337 kJ per mole, which means that an individual C-H bond requires 5.104 × 1019 J to break - this is about 3.1 electron volts. A tiny amount of energy.
Now, the key part to remember here, is that when a bond is formed, then the same amount of energy is released into the surroundings, frequently as heat, but sometimes in other forms, such as a photon of light. Since a chemical reaction frequently involves both breaking and forming bonds, we can, once we have data on bond energies, calculate how much energy is consumed by a given chemical reaction. We first sum all the energies required to break the bonds in the reactants - let’s call this R. Then we sum all the energies liberated by the formation of new bonds in the products - let’s call this P. The energy consumed by the reaction is therefore given simply by:
R - P
and in an elementary treatment, we can refer to this as the enthalpy of reaction. (The subject is, as actual chemists in the audience know, more complicated, not least because there are other enthalpies to consider, but this elementary treatment will suffice for my exposition).
This enthalpy is represented symbolically as ΔH in the chemistry literature. So, you will frequently see something like:
ΔH = -54 kJ mol-1
attached to a chemical equation.
Now, if R above is greater than P, then ΔH is greater than zero, and is a measure of how much energy the reaction consumes from the surroundings. Such reactions are known as endothermic reactions. To drive such reactions forward, an external energy source is required, and frequently, chemists provide this by heating their reaction mixtures, though other possibilities exist, such as passing an electrical discharge through the mixture, or subjecting the mixture to UV radiation. Indeed, both electrochemisty and photochemistry are substantial and intricate subdivisions of chemistry in their own right, but I digress. The key point here is that for an endothermic reaction, ΔH is a positive value, indicating that the reaction consumes energy from the surroundings.
On the other hand, if R is less than P, then the reaction, instead of consuming energy, is liberating surplus energy into the surroundings, frequently as heat. Such a reaction is known as an exothermic reaction, and for such reactions, ΔH is less than zero, indicating that instead of consuming energy, it’s producing energy. For an exothermic reaction, ΔH is a negative value.
From the above, it should be obvious that any exothermic reaction, once it starts, is self-sustaining, because there’s always spare energy for more bond breaking available once the reaction is underway. An endothermic reaction, of course, will require an energy input in order to drive it forward, but this need not be a hurdle if the energy input required is modest - if, for example, sunlight heating a puddle of reactants to 30°C is sufficient to drive forward an endothermic abiogenesis reaction, then that reaction will take place. Consequently, fake creationist “probability” calculations simply don’t apply.
Of course, the astute will recognise that the moment we have multiple reagents present, then probability might have some input, but at this point, if you’re dealing with trillions of molecules of said reactants, the Serial Trials Fallacy tells us that we need to be careful about dismissing possibilities on the basis of fake probability calculations.
Of course, there’s a lot more to be said on the subject of, say, nucleotide coupling to form RNA, and how we move from a collection of nucleotides to a self-replicating RNA, but scientists have already demonstrated that this is prebiotically plausible, as the numerous papers on the subject I referenced in my origin of life dissertation in another thread demonstrate amply. The research has been done, and the results are pretty much conclusive to anyone reading those papers honestly.
So, even before we consider self-organisation and self-assembly, elementary chemistry and a proper understanding of probability destroys creationist apologetics on this matter wholesale.
In my article on the origin of life, I provided references to eighty two peer reviewed scientific papers describing the experimental syntheses of all of these compounds.
Do you bother paying attention to facts when they are presented to you?
Oh look, I’ve now added yet more scientific papers to my collection as a result of fact checking your lies.
Prebiotic sugar synthesis? Oh look … two papers immediately jumped out from the requisite Google search:
Prebiotic Synthesis Of Simple Sugars By Photoredox Systems Chemistry by Dougal Ritson & John D. Sutherland, Nature Chemistry, 4: 895-899 (30th September 2012)
Prebiotic Sugar Formation Under Nonaqueous Conditions And Mechanochemical Acceleration by Saskia Lamour, Sebastian Pallmann, Maren Haas and Oliver Trapp, Life (Basel), 9(20: 52-62 (June 2019)
The second of those papers is freely available to view online here. The abstract of the first of those two papers reads as follows:
Note that the first of those papers dates from 2012, which means we’ve known that prebiotic sugar synthesis is possible for eleven years.
Both papers provide in detail, relevant reaction mechanisms, illustrating the pathways in question.
A third article I found is this one from a textbook:
The Role Of Silicates In The Synthesis Of Sugars Under Prebiotic Conditions by Joseph Lambert and Senthil Andavan Guruswamy-Thangavelu, Bio-Inspired Silicon-Based Materials, 19-25
I note with interest that one of the researchers is John D. Sutherland, whom I’ve already cited as an author of five scientific papers covering experimental prebiotic synthesis of nucleotides.
Looks like those lies are unravelling at an alarming rate …
EDIT … I’ve just found another paper, namely this one:
Role Of Clays In The Prebiotic Synthesis Of Sugar Derivatives From Formamide by Raffaelle Saladino, Veronica Neri and Claudia Crestini, Philosophical Magazine, 90(17-18):, 2329-2337 (30th March 2010)
That paper is freely downloadable from the journal here.
Obh obh, “@whoareyou” is going to get a smack. Don’t say I didn’t warn you!
If you are given information in response to a query (or flat out falsity in your case) it is wise to actually read the reply, not only READ it but also comprehend it. Otherwise, well, I think you see how it appears to this forum.
Meanwhile, it’s time to turn attention to lipids. And what do we find?
Oh that’s right, yet more peer reviewed scientific papers, documenting the laboratory experiments that were conducted to deduce prebiotic lipid synthesis pathways.
First off, we have this fine paper:
Synthesis Of Phospholipids Under Plausible Prebiotic Conditions And Analogies With Phospholipid Biochemistry For Origin Of Life Studies by Michele Fiore, Carolina Chieffo, Augustin Lopez, Dimitri Fayolle, Johal Ruiz, Laurent Soulère, Philippe Oger, Emiliano Altamura, Florence Popowycz, and René Buchet, Astrobiology, 22(5): 598-627 (10th May 2022)
Investigating Prebiotic Protocells For A Comprehensive Understanding Of The Origins of Life: A Prebiotic Systems Chemistry Perspective by Augustin Lopez and Michele Fiore, Life (Basel), 9(2): 49-69 (7th June 2019) (dowloadable in full from here)
covers a range of prebiotic syntheses of important molecules, and that paper provided me with no less than five additional references for scientific papers on prebiotic lipid synthesis, namely:
Prebiotic Lipidic Amphiphiles And Condensing Agents On The Early Earth by Michael Fiore and Peter Strazewski, Life (Basel), 6(2): 17-36 (June 2016)
Cyanamide Mediated Syntheses Under Plausible Primitive Earth Conditions. V. The Synthesis Of Phosphatidic Acids by D. E. Epps, E. Sherwood, J. Eichberg & J. Oró, Journal of Molecular Evolution, 11: 272-292 (1978)
Cyanamide Mediated Synthesis Under Plausible Primitive Earth Conditions. VI. The Synthesis Of Glycerol And Glycerophosphates by D E Epps, D W Nooner, J Eichberg, E Sherwood & J Oró, Journal of Molecular Evolution, 14(4): 235-241 (December 1979)
Synthesis Of Phosphatidylcholine Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions by M Rao, M R Eichberg & J Oró, Journal of Molecular Evolution, 18(3): 196-202 (1982)
Synthesis Of Phosphatidylethanolamine Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions by M Rao, J Eichberg & J Oró, Journal of Molecular Evolution, 25(1): 1-6 (1987)
Note that Oró’s work dates back all the way to 1978.
Do I really need to look for another dozen papers in a similar vein to hammer home this point, namely that prebiotic syntheses of relevant molecules has been known about, in some cases for decades?
Meanwhile, I’ll turn my attention briefly to one subset of the amino acid topic, namely synthesis of glycine. I have in my collection scientific papers that establish [1] that glycine is present in interstellar gas clouds, and has been detected therein spectroscopically, and [2] experimental replication of the synthesis of glycine by UV photolysis of cometary ices has been performed successfully in the laboratory.
Yes, that’s right - scientists replicated in the laboratory, the conditions extant in an interstellar gas cloud, and synthesised glycine by irradiating a mixture of ammonia and ethanol with UV light under those conditions.
Now if scientists can synthesise glycine in a replica interstellar gas cloud with replica cometary ices via UV light at around 4 Kelvins, I’m pretty sure that synthesis thereof under Earth conditions isn’t going to pose a challenge to those same scientists.
So, once again, it looks like assertions about the supposed impossibility of prebiotic syntheses of relevant molecules are roundly falsified.
You are arguing with a guy who stated in another thread that empirical and objective evidence does not lead to the truth. You have your work cut out with this one, my friend.
I’m not a chemist; I’ve taken exactly one chemistry course. I’ve taken 0 biochemistry courses. I’m not 100% sure what prebiotic synthesis even is. However, I did just skim the Wikipedia article on synthetic glycerol production during WW2, and a paragraph discussing the synthetic production of glycerol from propane (mentions that this process isn’t economical). For people like myself and and anyone else uneducated in chemistry; could you explain how that meshes with what you told us?
Basically, a prebiotic synthesis is one that is considered to have taken place on the early Earth, before life began. Which involves determining such factors as:
[1] The atmospheric composition of the early Earth (which has an impact upon such reactions);
[2] The likely reagents present;
[3] Whether or not ambient conditions favour the reaction energetically.
Thanks to the work of geologists and geochemists, we have a pretty good idea about [1] and [2]. As a consequence, modern day organic chemists can set about determining if reactions are possible between the reagents in [2], to form relevant molecules, and, as a wealth of peer reviewed scientific papers demonstrate, a host of such reactions have been found. Chemists can mimic the ambient conditions specified in [1], mix the reagents specified in [2], and observe the results.
Those results tell us that yes, a whole host of prebiotically plausible syntheses are possible, and that the energy conditions favouring them are well within the parameters expected to be present on the early Earth. In the case of endothermic reactions, sunlight (including UV), or heat from undersea volcanic vents can provide sufficient energy input to drive those reactions forward, and in the case of exothermic reactions, those will occur spontaneously anyway.
As for those starting reagents, well, we know that water, ammonia, methane, hydrogen cyanide and several others were likely to be present. These molecules have been detected in abundance in such sources as cometary ices and interstellar gas clouds, so no scientifically aware person will doubt that they were also present on the Earth after planetary accretion from the requisite materials. Indeed, hydrogen cyanide is a well-known starting point for a range of other molecules such as cyanamide, which acts as a stepping stone to a host of other useful molecules. Also present would be formic acid, formamide, formaldehyde and glyceraldehyde, and reduction of the latter by any of several reducing agents present would generate glycerol immediately. Indeed, formaldehyde would be a prime choice for such a reducing agent, as it’s already been demonstrated in one of the papers I’ve referenced, that formaldehyde reacts with glyceraldehyde to form glycerol, under mild conditions (warm the mixture to 30°C over a mineral substrate acting as a catalyst, of which many are possible) and hey presto, reduction takes place).
If any of those mineral substrates are phosphate minerals, then subsequent reaction of the newly formed glycerol with those phosphate minerals produces glycerophosphate, which is the basis for phospholipids of various species. Once a prebiotic synthesis of various fatty acids is in place (which it is, and at least one of the papers in my collection covers this), then those will react with the glycerophosphate to form the phospholipids in question, and at that point, you have the basis for encapsulation of other molecules within lipid vesicles.
The fun part is that the basics of all this were worked out decades ago - much of the work was completed in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This is 40 year old chemistry.
If a molecule was synthesised in outer space, that defintely counts as a prebiotic (or abiotic) synthesis, especially if it took place in an ancient gas cloud.
Though to be rigorous, the term “prebiotic” refers to a synthesis taking place on Earth before the emergence of living organisms and their associated chemistry. Any synthesis not involving a living metabolism is more generally termed “abiotic”, which covers syntheses in such media as cometary ices.
Words have meanings. Facts: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.
These origin if life papers use words as: “could have”“potentially” partially explian” “still an open question” and that’s just looking at one of the papers.
More from the paper: “it is plausible that” “considered as pausibly”
