Time factor in self assembly calculations?

Apart from their startling naivety of theoretical calculations about the probability of for instance the correct sequence of amino acids coming together to form a protein these calculations seem to lack any consideration of time scales involved.Sure the chances of a single successful event seem astronomical, but how do the odds look when you factor in that there may be billions of molecules reacting over billions of years?Do any mathematicians fancy looking over the figures? A more realistic model might be an imaginary self replicating length of RNA- say eight base pairs (four "unnatural" ones) and a unique 200 residue sequence.Shane

I am not talking about real systems here, merely pointing out what seems to be an obvious flaw in the common creationist arguments for the unlikelihood of molecules self assembling to produce something meaningful. Most of the calculations focus on the unlikelihood of a single event occuring (eg 200 L-amino acids forming a specific sequence of polypeptide, from a pool of random residues). My point was that these estimates don't seem to consider that the reactions could be happening repeatedly potentially over vast samples (primordial ocean soups?) over millions of years.The separate issue of the evolution of a protein family for instance is undergoing revolutions with the increased understanding of how eukaryotic genomes are arranged in order to undergo deliberate evolution through such mechanisms as functional domain splicing using introns and modifications in gene expression in order to change developmental processes. The former is illustrated with enzyme pathways for polyketide synthesis, the latter with the functional differences between man and chimp despite the similarities in gene sequences. It makes sense that eukaryotic organisms with such a slow turn over of generations need a mechanism to evolve more efficiently than prokaryotes which seem to get by with gene swapping between species and random mutation.So in summary I was talking about highly theoretical origin of life scenarios- once you start talking about whole organisms and genomes the processes of evolution become anything but random.Shane

Thanks for the interesting question Peter.Firstly, regarding original abiogenesis, I don't think anyone is seriously proposing that something as complex as a modern bacterium would have formed spontaneously. Incidentally I love how creationists sometimes run thought experiments about eyeballs etc forming spontaneously out of an organic soup- I love the image of a primordial sea of eyeballs Secondly, on a practical note, in this particular experiment you could never be sure that any emerging life forms are the result of completely disassembled starting bacteria so positive results would be highly tenuous.Thirdly, and theoretically, the products of a perfectly lysed solution would include lipid vesicles which would contain various cellular components. These vesicles are well known to form spontaneously from lipids. I think it is quite feasable for a functioning bacterium to reform from the soup, given that the ionic composition of the lysate resembles that inside a living bacterium, the extracellular medium is changed (even just diluted with a different cation) after the vesicles form in order to set up a chemical energy gradient across the vesicle membranes and that a large enough sample is used (which would probably need to be far far larger than a beaker). A single functioning cell in this environment would face ideal conditions to rapidly grow by assimilating the soup from which it arose.This process does rely on the proteins and DNA remaining largely intact, and is exactly the kind of model which should allow funtional bacteria to be made from synthetic genomes, proteins and lipids. If the sonication proceeds as far as reducing proteins to amino acids and DNA to nuclebases you could not expect anything like a bacterium to reform, but self replicating molecules could possibly emerge if an alternate chemical energy source was available. The key to reforming a bacterium is having proteins which can couple ATP generation to a transmembrane potential in order to kick start cellular processes.An aside thought. One of the key characteristics of living things is the ability to grow and divide. I was just pondering the process of nuclear transplant as used in animal cloning, etc. Surely when a donor egg is stripped of its nucleus it is no longer capable of dividing on its own, therefore it temporarily lacks the prime quality of life and is therefore nonliving. Similarly the nucleus to be inserted into the donor egg is incapable of reproducing itself independently and is also nonliving. Doesnt the implantation of a nucleus into an egg represent the recreation of living matter from non living matter?Shane

You don't seem to have addressed my point that in the strictest sense neither a naked nucleus nor a denucleated cell constitute living organisms, but putting them together can produce a viable cell. Surely this is a very simple example of destroying and recreating life sensu stricto? In what way is a naked nucleus any more alive than something like a virus? Both need cellular structures in order to replicate themselves. The denucleation case is more interesting though as the cell is also effectively dead without the proper nucleus.Can anyone else think of other examples where modification of life on a molecular or organelle level causes it to drift across the borderline between life and death?Shane

Hi PeterI will readily admit that the theory of abiogenesis is currently much patchier than evolution. But general observations about the capacity for simple molecules to behave in complex ways is leading us to more specific answers- self propagation of prions is a well known example, certainly not evidence of abiogenesis on its own but definitely an indication of how molecules can self replicate under appropriate conditions.The problem is that any evidence for abiogenesis within extant organisms will be understandably vague or even completely erased by evolution, probably even moreso if life originated earlier in space. The uniformity of the chemical composition of living things is highly suggestive of a common origin, but the development of that starting point has only been theorised around, and I think it is healthy to be highly sceptical of the content of current models.I would consider the current theories of abiogenesis to be at the same developmental level as emergent Darwinian evolution. In future one of the theories will probably be further substantiated and the others will be viewed with retrospective bemusement (although lamarkian evolution is getting a reevaluation with the discovery of the importance of gene regulation in response to environment). Of some use may be the current efforts of producing bacteria with the minimum essential genes, but I think more work in to the recently discovered nanobes from deep sediments might be more crucial. At this stage they seem to be self propagating chemical reactions- no DNA can be isolated from them, they appear to have mineralised cell walls and their endurance of high temperatures and pressures is unexplained. They seem to fit the bill for early life, even extraterrestrial life, but research has only taken place in this field for a few years by a handfull of scientists. Who knows what else is out there, given we are still discovering new species of monkeys and trees? Surely a lack of crucial evidence should be reason for tentative hypotheses rather than sweeping refutation of any possibilities?So in summary I would say it is too early to propose a water proof model of abiogenesis. But based on what limited evidence there is it isn't an unreasonable theory. It is closer to being substantiated than to being refuted. It certainly makes more scientific sense than any historical creation story you care to cite. Are there any other alternatives? Raelianism perhaps? I think it is difficult to accuse scientists of being closed minded and dogmatic about their belief structure- sure there is some inertia in changing the status quo, but generally the most controversial new theories come from scientists themselves. Creationists in contrast seem fixated on validation of historical literature.ShanePS- I was referring to synthetically produced bacteria as the next step to the production of synthetic polio virus. The purpose of which experiments is that living matter can be carefully created from nonliving matter.

PeterYour example is a great point of the heart of my argument. In the nuclear transfer example the nucleus needs the appropriate environment of the cell in which to be a viable living organism, and beyond that the entire cell needs a usitable environment in which to grow. Your example of a cell culture which is prevented from growing through changes in its chemical (and strictly nonliving) environment highlights the main issue of contention- where does the living organism end and the non living environment begin?To me this points out that organisms and their environments cannot be disentangled and the definition of matter as living or nonliving is a human imposition. The question of whether or not there is or ever has been anything supernatural about our environment is a bigger, less tangible question. Perhaps in the strictest definition the supernatural must be unobservable and unreproducible, otherwise it falls within the bounds of science. Can God can only exist by not existing?????From my perspective living organisms cannot be considered outside their living and nonliving environment. I am an advocate of the gaia hypothesis and only find room for a fuzzy feeling inducing, godlike presence in the entire interconnectedness of life. The universe is so dazzling as we find it- where is the need to conjure up an invisible cranky, bearded, robe wearing old man who created, tempted and then judged us?Shane

Hi PeterI am not implying that you have personally suggested that any creation models are more tenable than evolution. In fact your prime objective seems to be the criticism of evolution without suggesting more viable alternatives, so I was encouraging you to reveal your position. Do you perhaps think that the origin of life and the universe as a whole is irrelevant to modern existance? (I am struggling to think of a human society without a creation story.....was there a primitive isolated tribe in Malaysia discovered in the late 20th century which had no such mythology??)Shane

Hi PeterI will admit to not knowing the full background of the stone age malaysian tribe story- it was more to illustrate the point that all societies seem to need some story of their ultimate origin (being a hoax fits this suggestion). We are all compelled to take sides in this debate to varying degrees.More importantly I think a self consistent concept of where we came from is very important if we are going to take control of our future. Taken to the extreme religious fundamentalism can be used as justification for plundering our environment and endangering our survival as a species based on the premise that we are going to a better place anyway (or worse as in the heavens gate sect). If this world is just a soul sorting machine with a rapidly approaching use by date as suggested in christian theology then we don't owe it to future generations to keep it habitable. Evolution gives us a more progressive philosophy, with room for cooperation and altruism along side competition and progress. It places more importance on our children's survival than on some intangible reward (ala "eat all your dogma and you can have heaven for dessert").I also think few would try to argue against the proposition that science has offered many more tangible benefits to its "followers" than any religion (despite circumcision and compulsive handwashing by early christians). How many people could say with any authority that they would rather live in a prescientific society such as the middle ages?Lastly you said:>Science tries hard to explain things that have never been observed. In >my opinion that is gratuitous. It should not be the realm of science.I think it would be gratuitous if science was presented as irrefutable, but the basis of science is that it thrives on change. In contrast religious advocates also "try hard to explain things that have never been observed" and then attempt to present them in a factual context that is both inflexible and untestable.I will admit that there is in scientific fields a necessary inertia against changing basic ideas and that most scientists conduct their work by using previous results as a premise. But any scientist would leap at the opportunity to rewrite a basic principle if they could produce the evidence for it. Einstein's refinement of gravitational theory is a good example. Once the first substantial evidence was found the field took off and as the theory was further substantiated it became generally accepted.I think it is reasonable to highlight the limitations in our current understanding of the details of evolution (not surprising given the fact we have only had reasonable genetic tools for the last 10 years) but to dismiss it without offering a more plausable (and testable) alternative that fits all the evidence gathered so far does nothing to further our understanding of the origin of biological diversity.Shane

Hi PeterIn response to your points:>1) nanobes grow = unwarranted conclusion. Probably it is nothing but crystalisation/polymerisation.Nanobes are non-crystalline for one thing. Secondly they appear to grow on a variety of common surfaces (glass, copper or polystyrene). If it was a simple polymerisation process then why have nanobe colonies never been observed on these surfaces unless they have been exposed to sandstone samples from the sea bed? What is the magic ingredient if not life of some kind? If it is an inorganic process then why does the process occur the same way on different substrates?2) nanobes have a heterotrophic metabolism = unwarranted conclusion. polymerisation requires monomers from their environment,The authors never conclude that they have established the metabolism of nanobes in their original paper (American Mineralogist, Vol 83, 1541-1550 (1998)). They only state that the preferential growth of nanobe colonies on areas later found to have organic contamination from human fingerprints in the petri dishes suggests that nanobes have some need for organic substrates (ie are heterotrophic). And don't jump up and down about the contamination issue- it doesn't change the fact that nanobes were originally observed in the sandstone samples or more importantly that nanobes have been observed.>3) nanobes resemble actinomycetes and fungi = so what, there are piles of rock on Mars that resemble a face.And tortias that resemble jesus.....I think it is not an unwarranted observation that something which they are proposing may be a living organism looks very similar to known living organism (except for being an order of magnitude smaller). It is a necessary part of the argument- looks like life-> behaves like life-> is chemically consistent with life---> might be life
This observation is only part of the argument. If it looked nothing like life that would be a form of contrary evidence. They are establishing the lack of contrary morphological evidence.4) nanobes are composed of C, O, and N and that is consistent with living matter = unwarrented conclusion. The atmosphere is also composed of C, O and N.You are ignoring the details here. The composition of the atmosphere is C:N of about 1:70:29 from memory. The nanobes C:N is about 60:10:30 (from figure 9 in the original article). This is about the same as it observed for living organisms. More importantly there is insufficient metal or counterion present to suggest the formations are mineral in nature. Again showing a lack of contrary evidence.>5) nanobes appear to be membrane bound structures, a cytoplasma and nuclear area =unwarranted conclusion. All they show is that nanobes are morhological distinct microvessels.In one image there is a suggestion of a darker area toward the centre of the cavity which they suggest as a possible nuclear area, but could just as easily be a sectioning artifact given the difficulties they report in preparing the TEM samples. The conclusion that they observed membrane bound structures is fairly hard to dispute though. Again this is a small but essential piece of the whole argument.6) nanobes have amorphic wall structres = sowhat. Stones have amorphic wall structures.This is a big misunderstanding. Stones have distinct crystalline structure on a microscopic scale. Other examples of microscopic bodies which were mistaken for organisms based on morphology alone have crystalline microstructure. They are rightly eliminating the possibility these structures are mineral in nature.7) nanobes contain DNA as indicated by DAPI, Acridine orange and Feulgen staining =unwarranted conclusion. The nanobes may stain aspecificly. They did not include negative controls. They did not isolate DNA (very simple procedure).DAPI displays a specific flouresence when it binds to AT rich DNA sequences and is the best indication DNA presented in the paper but is admittedly qualitative. They did not isolate DNA for two reasons. Firstly they are a microscopy group rather than a microbiology/genetics group. Secondly isolation of DNA is not always a "very simple procedure", especially when working with tissues which have never been successfully extracted before. The nanobes display unusual cell wall properties, grow slowly and represent a very small sample as individual colonies- all of which would impede DNA isolation.
Even if the DNA tests are false positives the organisms may not contain DNA but could still be considered living. Their size is not inconsistent with a different mode of reproduction. Too much is unknown at this stage.My conclusion is the same as theirs: it could be a new form of life but more research is needed. Your implication that the absence of any papers in the biological literature suggests nanobes a hoax is a bit of a stretch. Would a search of the astronomical literature of 1700 AD have proved that pluto didn't exist? Try to stick to the reported evidence even though it is limited at this stage. At the very worst this could be a misinterpretation of some very compelling initial evidence. Bacteria slightly larger than nanobes (200nm) have been isolated and genotyped so the interpretation isn't unreasonable.Shane

Hi PeterYou said:>With our reasonable genetic and molecular biological tools it has
>become clear that evolution theory cannot account for:
>1) the origin of life,
>2) the origin of genes,
>3) (the origin of) biodiversity.Strictly speaking the theory of evolution does not have to account for the origin of life or genes (or do you mean "novel" genes here?). I think Darwin himself still left room for god to start the whole process off but these questions are more relevant to abiogenesis (are we in the wrong forum for this discussion?). Evolution concerns the changes of organisms across generations in response to their environment.Genetics does support a common origin to life on earth. The highly conserved set of amino acids and base pairs used by all organisms are a great example given that unnatural amino acids and basepairs have been shown to do the job just as well or even better in some cases.Within the very limited time frame of human studies we have observed populations of organisms in the laboratory and field undergo detectable genetic changes in response to selective pressures. We have not yet observed a new species form from selective pressure which is so novel that no-one could dispute its recognition however. Here is the abstract of a nice viral example though where the previous evolution of a bacteriophage was predicted from genetic similarities and then reproduced in vivo!Complete nucleotide sequence and likely recombinatorial origin of bacteriophage T3,Pajunen MI, Elizondo MR, Skurnik M, Kieleczawa J, Molineux IJ,JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY 319 (5): 1115-1132 JUN 21 2002We report the complete genome sequence (38,208 bp) of bacteriophage T3 and provide a bioinformatic comparative analysis with other completely
sequenced members of the T7 group of phages. This comparison suggests that T3 has evolved from a recombinant between a T7-like coliphage and a yersiniophage. To assess this, recombination between T7 and the Yersinia enterocolitica serotype O:3 phage phiYeO3-12 was accomplished in vivo;coliphage progeny from this cross were selected that had many biological properties of T3. This represents the first experimentally observed recombination between lytic phages whose normal hosts are different bacterial genera.
_______The original assumptions of ToE *are* being revealed as simplistic, but the emerging picture is that evolution is part of the "design" of genomes and is a much more efficient process than first imagined. We have observed numerous mechanisms by which larger scale genetic modifications are made other than by base pair mutation alone, namely transformation, transposition and polyploidy. We are getting glimpses into the operational complexity of the genome by studying the intricacies of gene regulation. Access to whole genomes is demonstrating that modern evolution is more about genetic rearrangement than functional innovation. Life already has enough existing tricks up its sleeve to meet any challenge thrown at it. All of the basic biochemistry of life seems to have been sorted out well before multicellularity arose.And you don't address my main point that molecular biology techniques that allow rapid genome sequencing and the study of gene interaction are recent discoveries- it takes a lot of time to accumulate the necessary data. Why is it reasonable to expect the current data to be irrefutable given that 99% of the current genetic information in the world is still waiting to be sequenced and those genomes already available are decades away from being well interpreted? I personally can't wait for the chimpanzee genome to be completed- that ought to rock the boat a bit Are you seriously proposing that we already understand the significance of the majority of the thousands of genes in a human or nematode? Last time I checked there were even still plenty of bacterial genes with unknown functions.Lastly I want to express my belief that the position of life being so complex that an outside influence was necessary is a cop out. It merely excuses us as a species from doing all the painstaking scientific data collection and as individuals from trying to comprehend it all. Irreducable complexity is in the mind of the (irrepressably simple?) beholder and our personal inadequacies cannot be construed as evidence of external influence.

Hi PeterI find it interesting that you can tell the difference between life and a "self propagating reaction". This response only strengthens my original point that nanobes *might* be a key to understanding abiogenesis. Or perhaps they will turn out to be very small but otherwise unremarkable bacteria or some form of organic artifact. I originally mentioned them in passing only, and also to highlight how incomplete our awareness if of life on earth even on a species and family basis (let alone genetically). The less controversial discovery of normal sized lithotrophic bacteria in similar environments (http://www.sciteclibrary.com/eng/catalog/pages/2832.html) has opened the question about what regions of the earths crust are habitable and their possible involvement in abiogenesis.The sandstones contain some N and C- but mostly Si and O. The formation of the nanobes represents a concentration and organisation of certain elements usually associated with life in a manner which is remeniscent of life except for its size.I would say that something looking like life is a comparative rather than subjective observation. To make the comparison objective you could paramaterise the morphological variables of life if necessary and see the relative proportions of nanobes are within the range of those observed for known life forms (even though their absolute proportions are novel).Carpet fibres have a very different microscopic structure to microbes and nanobes. A biochemical makeup consistent with life is only a piece of corroborative evidence. You must keep in mind the techniques they used- SEM and TEM and Xray diffraction and elemental analysis- are all standard microscopic techniques typical of a microscopy group. The ape/seawater example is a non sequitur, but I nor the researchers never claimed that they had conclusive proof of life, only a suggestion. Their expertise and their limited evidence fits with them publishing in a geological journal also. They only showed the absence of contradictory evidence using the techniques they were most proficient with.>One doesn't need ions to polymerise.But one does need counterions to form inorganic deposits. By this I meant halogens or chalcogens consistent with a metallic or silica based inorganic structure. Inorganic deposits would be crystalline and not polymeric- there is a distinct difference. The researchers showed that the structures were neither crystalline nor inorganic.>You cannot present the nanobes as having a nucleus based on this
>observation. They do not show any membrane bound structures. It is
>wishful thinking.A nucleus is very different from a "possible nuclear area" as stated in the original paper. The researchers were only pointing out an area of higher electron density in the centre of a cross section of a nanobe filament. That the filament itself is membrane bound is convincingly shown. The exact composition of the membrane is unknown but has to be consistent with the elemental analysis of the structures.>What is the big deal being not of mineral nature. They've already
>shown that the nanodes are non-mineral of nature. So it may be not
>stones, but it certainly has nothing in common with life.A self replicating, apparently cellular and non-mineral process has "nothing in common with life"? Puh-lease!>They could have asked anybody in their institute to provide conclusive >evidence of the nature of the DNA. If they send the nanobe to me I
>will extract the DNA (if present).I agree that the lack of published progress in this area in the last few years is puzzling but it is not evidence of the whole thing being a fraud. Claims of nanobes being ubiquitous from other groups though are also emerging. Even verified very small bacteria have only fallen within the range of experimental techniques within the last few decades. Perhaps their silence is political- they are waiting to accumulate enough conclusive data to produce a major report in Science of Nature and claim the area as their own. They wouldnt be the first group to sit on data until the time was right to release it.The existance and biological status of nanobes doesnt rely on them containing any DNA- in fact they would be more interesting if they lacked it. And you should know as a scientist that negative results are never conclusive proof that you started with nothing, only that you may have used the wrong technique so far. The nanobes appear to have especially resistant cell walls- how would you suggest they rupture them without destroying and DNA (or worse RNA) that might be present given that their exact composition is unknown? Can DNA be extracted efficiently from the most resistant bacterial spores?On DAPI and DNA I think you misunderstand how specific the interaction is. The dye binds selectively to the minor groove of DNA with considerable sequence selectivity. On binding the flouresence spectrum of DAPI changes considerably in a well characterised manner. Binding to anything other than DNA would change its flouresence spectrum in a different way (see Biomol GmbH - Life Science Shop). And I will again reemphasise that even if the DAPI result is a false positive that doesn't negate all the other observations of life like behaviour and qualities- it only makes them more intriuging and more relevant to my original reference to nanobes.Shane

Hi PeterThanks for the vigorous debate on this topic.On objectivity/subjectivity a computer program could be made to do a quantitative comparison of microscopic images, with examples of known living organisms and minerals as controls. Or maybe you could show microbiologists random images of nanobes and other bacteria and minerals and get them to distinguish living from non living based on the image alone?On my statement "one needs counterions to form inorganic deposits"- the group were eliminating the possibility of a carbonate mineral by pointing out that there was insufficient oxygen or metal in the sample (eg if it was CaCO3- Ca is the metal, O is the counterion). The abundance of carbon in the nanobes cannot be attributed to an inorganic carbonate due to the lack of metals and counter ions. Oxygen is seen in the elemental analysis but there is insufficient for it to be a carbonate (which needs three times as much oxygen as carbon).On the possible publishing tactics of the group- discovery relies on prior publication so a preliminary but incomplete paper in a lower circulation journal is not an uncommon way to stake a first claim.A negative DNA stain control would be the flourescence spectrum of the dye alone in this case- they were using the change in flouresence on addition of the sample as a way of inferring the presence of DNA. Given that DAPI has already been shown to undergoe this change only when DNA is present (and presumably not when just plain quartz or polystyrene is added) then it serves as reasonable evidence. The possibility of an unknown molecule causing the same effect is very unlikely. Interestingly given the difficulty in handling the specimens possible contamination by real bacteria cannot be ruled out at this stage. The isolation of DNA from fossils is a very fiddly technique and relies on the mineral matrix being soluble. Disruption of an organic matrix is more likely to cause disruption of organic molecules like DNA and I am quite sure that dormant bacterial spores are difficult to isolate DNA from. Any micro people wish to comment?But all of this is immaterial to the basic argument- nanobes would actually be more interesting if they were a carbon based polymerisation reaction which spontaneously produced hollow carbon based structures. Even if they are not alive, don't contain DNA, RNA, proteins or any biomolecules their spontaneous formation, structure and elemental composition alone make them possible participants in abiogenesis. Can't you see that arguing they are not just plain but tiny bacteria is favouring abiogenesis?Shane

Hi PeterYou just said:>All I say is that the present scientific data are not in accord with
>the NDT. So in fact we do not need to know more. The more we know the >more it will show that NDT is incorrect. That's all, but it's enough.I nearly fell off my chair when I read this Are you claiming to have mysterious psychic powers? On what base could anyone make an assertion that any data gathered in the future will or will not support a theory?All I am saying is that we know only a small part of the story of how genes work together to control organisms. The bigger question of how genes change during evolution is even further from be exhaustively addressed. Even if I was to accept that there is currently no conclusive evidence for evolution (or ID for that matter) I would *never* assert that there never will be. To do so would be closed minded and far from scientific. And even if any details of any particular evolutionary theory are disproven that doesnt sink evolution in toto- it only calls for a revision of the specifics. ID should only be invoked where direct evidence of ID is found. At the moment ID isnt the simplest explanation of the facts, only the most convenient.Shane

I also wonder how adequate it is to base the calculations on a single sequence, given that most known catalytic sequences can be modified extensively without destroying their activity.Also if you simplify the system by reducing the number of amino acids (no one is suggesting you need all of them to make a functional protein), or use eight nucleobases as first suggested the initial probability of a specific 100 residue sequence is reduced to 1/8^100, which when multiplied through your very generous mass and time estimates (1^81 * 1^12 *365 * 24 * 60 * 60) gives a "probability" (or estimate of the number of times it should occur in the time frame) of around 1^10- which leaves room for more realistic estimates of mass and time. This shows how sensitive the calculation is to the original assumptions about the complexity of the system. Reducing the complexity further to four sequence elements (ala modern RNA) changes the "probability" to 2^40.

My main point was not about the meaningfulness of the earlier calculations- I was trying to highlight how sensitive the outcome is to the inital level of complexity considered. Start using large exponents and pretty much anything is possible.I think the real problem with the meaningfulness of these calculations is that they assume there was a single unlikely event which gave rise to a single self replicating molecule which was similar to a modern day biopolymer. The approach is only slightly better than trying to imagine how a whole cell or eyeball could have spontaneously formed. I think the real lesson from these exercises is that our imaginations are simply not up to the task of intuitively finding the path from nonliving to (modern) living matter.We have to "think outside the cells we live in" The selective use of L-amino acids in proteins and R-sugars in polynucleotides is probably already the result of selection which occurred an unimaginably long time ago. Is a more fundamental issue not the estimation of how probable spontaneous formation was but its impossibility? Does it only have to be possible in order to be a viable alternative?I just thought of an interesting question regarding quantum physics ie:1.If the observation influences the result,2. If a process which results in many quantum states creates observers as part of one of those states, does the act of observation cause the states to collapse into the one containing the observer?Sorry to pick a new tangent- the original thread was getting a bit thread bare. Does this count as "sleight of hand" on the part of an evolutionist? ;PShane