Life's Little Quirks

Nearly ten years ago, IBM announced plans for a massive supercomputer that would be employed to help scientists understand the complex nature of protein folding. A protein’s structure and its function are so closely related that any “mis-fold” will alter the protein so much that it ceases to function properly. IBM’s goal was to better understand these folds in order to further our understanding of disease and the manner in which information is encoded biologically.

From IBM:

“Protein architecture is based on three principles:

1. The formation of a polymer chain
2. The folding of this chain into a compact function-enabling structure, or native structure
3. Post-translational modification of the folded structure

The protein chain (or peptide chain if short in length) is a heteropolymer built up from alpha amino acid monomers…. The sequence of amino acid residues in the peptide chain is termed the primary structure of the protein. The 20 different choices for each amino acid in the chain give the possibility of enormous diversity, even for small proteins. For example, a peptide of 30 residues yields the astonishing number of about 20^30, or approximately 10^39, possible unique sequences.From the enormous number of possible protein sequences that could exist, we observe relatively few in nature.

It is thought that the diversity of viable proteins has been constrained by natural selection to give:
1. Desired function
2. Adequate stability
3. Foldability
4. Evolvability
from appropriate evolutionary precursors

…The fact that a subset of heteropolymers constructed from amino acids and used in biological processes actually take on reproducible three-dimensional structures in a relatively short time of seconds or less is one of the marvels of nature.”

So, IBM recognizes that there is a certain niftiness when it comes to life. Without life existing, the formation of a protein polymer chain coincident with those found in life even under ideal conditions would be a rare happening (so rare that has yet to be duplicated in a laboratory environment). Add to that the idea that the proteins then need to fold into a certain shape and join with other proteins in a specific manner to form a cell. Oh, and just for kicks… there are two distinct types of amino acids and one cannot join with the other.

Within a living organism or a virus, RNA/DNA carries the instructions that “tell” these proteins how to form. Outside of living organisms, there would exist a multitude of iterations for proteins, each as likely as the next. Still, as a general rule, the “primordial soup” theory of naturalistic formation is taught as fact.

Why? It seems incredibly unlikely, does it not? In spite of a complete lack of proof, we’re told to believe basically that since life had to come from Earth and this is really the only “reputable” (i.e. non-creationist) theory out there, it must be true. Prior to researching this topic, I had assumed that the “soup” had gone by the wayside by now (along with ideas like centrifugal force and static universe theories). I recall questioning the “soup” explanation in an eighth grade Earth Science course because it really made little or no sense then (and I really didn’t question anything when I was 13). Now, I just marvel at the fact that one naturalist writing after another references this theory (or fact, as it is usually written) on how we arrived here. If I were a naturalist, I would demand a better explanation. Perhaps there is one out there that my research didn’t happen upon. If there is, it would probably be worthwhile to send an email or two to inform a few of our foremost naturalist proponents.

I have been accused (more than once) of abandoning science. In my defense, I don’t believe I have departed from scientific facts and observation; rather, science can only tell us so much about the things we’ve discussed thus far. Science can tell us, for instance, that time began or that cosmic background radiation exists. It can tell us that galaxies are real, that the universe is expanding, that matter/energy interactions always result in more disorder than before, and that the existence of life is an undeniable truth. Hopefully I have never asserted anything that goes against the list above.

When science offers no solution, though, we have to default to logic and reason (I think I was pretty clear in Week 2 that logic and reason should be among our tools). If I were to give evidence that contradicted observables, I would expect to be called on it; however, there is no reason we can’t use reason to go beyond limited facts (not “against” facts, mind you… “beyond” facts). So, let’s gear up those minds of ours and look at the problem at hand:

Hypothesis: Life can come from non-life.
Background information: The basic components of life are amino acids (organic molecules).
Test: Simulate the conditions found in the oxygen-poor early Earth to try to create life.
Result: Amino acids are created under the appropriate conditions.
Conclusion: Life forms when the amino acids we observed form together into proteins like those found in life (chances: “relatively few” in 10^39) then those proteins (which we can’t create, except from life) fold in a perfect manner (which we can’t even comprehend without a multimillion-dollar supercomputer) to create cells.

Oh, and if oxygen is present, the whole thing goes to pot.

Did I miss a step?

So, why do we assume that life can come from non-life? And, why in the world do we teach it as fact? By all means, keep experimenting… there is, after all, a “relatively few” in 10^39 chance that you’ll happen upon the right results by accident. Here’s the real kicker: If a scientist were ever to create life in a beaker, what would that prove? That a supremely intelligent being can set perfect conditions to create life from non-life?