Talk:Amino acids would not polymerize

From EvoWiki

The following is copied from wikipedia:

Information theorist Hubert Yockey argued that chemical evolutionary research begs the question:

Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened. One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written. (Yockey, 1977. A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology 67:377–398, quotes from pp. 379, 396.) In a book he wrote 15 years later, Yockey argued that the idea of abiogenesis from a primordial soup is a failed paradigm:

Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions. … The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life. (Yockey, 1992. Information Theory and Molecular Biology, p. 336, Cambridge University Press, UK, ISBN 0-521-80293-8). It should be noted that Yockey, in general, possesses a highly critical attitude toward people who give credence toward natural origins of life, often invoking words like "faith" and "ideology". Yockey's publications have become favorites to quote among creationists, though he is not a creationist himself (as noted in this 1995 email[1] (http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199602/0125.html)). PhoteK

I recently emailed Yockey and asked him to give an example of one failure of the primordial soup aside from the complete lack of evidence, Yockey responded with the following:

"To: Daniel  photek_8_@hotmail.com From: Hubert P Yockey  hpyockey@AOL.com Subject: Primordial soup? Dear Daniel: The primordial soup was suggested by Haeckel in 1866, not by Oparin who was not born then. Louis Pasteur in 1822 showed that all life is of one handedness. The primeval soup would have been racemic. The sulfur bearing amino acids methionine and cysteine do not appear in spark discharge experiments. Finally, and most important, no genetic code exists between proteins and RNA and DNA. This is the Central Dogma. Therfore the origin of life by “proteins first�? is impossible, not just unlikely.

All these matters and many more are discussed in my book: Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life. It may be ordered from Amazon, Barnes & Noble or from your local book store.

Thank you for your interest in my book.

Sincerely Hubert P. Yockey" PhoteK

This is so stupid. Yockey seems to assume that biologists think that you just need some soup and a few strokes of lightning, and everything immediately turns into life as we know it. Racemic mixtures have to undergo evolution to turn one-handed. Look up random walk. --tk (t) 09:25, 5 April 2006 (BST)

I tried to make the page random walk but there was some error in the database. I don't want to write it again >_< --tk (t) 09:51, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Is it possible there was some sort of lock. I was grinding away on my change here and when I tried to save it "failed" (no error or anything) and just went back into edit mode with your change.

Is it just me, or is it that all of the rebuttals PhoteK posts about abiogenesis is just a cleverly veiled attempt at peddling Yockey's books? Plus, why does Yockey insist on saying that Haeckel coined the term "primordial soup," when all reputable sources of informations continue saying that Oparin did?--Mr A. 16:24, 5 April 2006 (BST)

To me the old idea, if I paraphrase it correctly, that the universe is not just stranger than we think but stranger than we can imagine comes to mind. I was just watching a Nova on the Cassini-Huygens mission and tell there was anyone who anticipated, really not just sci-fi speculation, what Titan was like. Until we got found it, no one thought there were water-ammonia lavas at liquid methane temps. Come on, Yockey, or anyone - tell me you knew this. So to assume we can rule out prebiotic chemistry on a planet 4.5 billion years ago with strange and literally unimaginable conditions is just silly. It is the limits of our minds that says it is impossible, not the science. Now abiogenesis is definitely a weak argument (today), but it can not be stated to be false any more than it can unequivocally be stated to be true. And clear the decks because it has failed - again, come on, either it was created or it evolved, so discarding one de facto endorses the other. So this is the you-can't-show-me-so-it-can't-be-true. Hop in a time machine and tell Lyell continents move or Newton that the universe is expanding or whatever - lack of imagination is not proof of the alternate hypothesis. --Dmill96 09:56, 5 April 2006 (BST)