Abstract
What is the Uncaused-Cause ?
Randomness Is Not a Rational Answer
by
Robert Moon
“What is the Uncaused-Cause ?” is the ultimate question related to the origin of matter
and the origin of life. IIs there a “designer-creator” or are there only “natural-processes?”
In their last chapter of their book “The Grand Design” Hawkins and Mlodinow correctly state
that: “the laws of nature tell us how the universe behaves, but they don’t answer the why?”
Three questions are restated that were posed at the beginning of their book:
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why do we exist?
Why this set of laws and not some other?
They assert that those who claim the answer to these questions using arguments related
to a creator God have merely deflected the question “to that of who created God.” They
claim “that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and
without invoking any divine beings. If by science, they mean or include the “laws of nature”
or “natural law”, the question “where did the laws come from?” would still remain
unanswered.
Theories such as “String Theory” and “M-Theory” attempt to address questions related to
the origin of matter via the origin of the universe or universes. The possibilities implied by
these theories for multiple universes are so varied that it is reasonable to ask do these
theories reduce ambiguity concerning the origins of matter and/or the universe(s)? These
theories have yet to make testable experimental predictions. Consequently, this leads
some to claim that these theories failed the test of science.
In addition to questions about the origin of matter which makes life possible there are
questions about “how did life originate from nonlife?” Some evolutionist claim there is
more than enough time for evolution. This assertion appears to be based upon the
mechanism of “survival of the fittest.” However, Micro followed by macro evolution
cannot begin via “survival of the fittest” until there’s life!
Even if through science humans understood all the laws of nature and these
explained the origins of how the universe came into existence and how life began,
there would still be the question: “WHERE DID THE LAWS COME FROM?”
-i-
What is the Uncaused-Cause ?
Randomness Is Not a Rational Answer
by
Robert Moon
The ultimate question(s) of the origin of matter and the origin of life is what is/are the
uncaused-cause(s). Is there a “designer-creator” or are there only “natural-processes?”
I was reading the last pages (275-276) of the last chapter of the book The Inflationary
Universe by Alan H Guth (1997)(1). Hartel and Hawkins assertions seemed mind-boggling.
Were they suggesting that if all the laws of physics were understood it would explain the
existence of the universe? Halfway trough the last paragraph related to Hartel and Hawkins
assertions Guth commented “That is, the laws of physics would imply the existence
of the universe.” I immediately wrote in the margin the book “where did the laws come
from?” I then continued to read the last few sentences of the chapter. Alan Guth’s last
sentence stated “if the creation of the universe can be described as a quantum process,
we would be left with one deep mystery of existence: what is it that determines the laws
of physics?”
Alan Guth’s book is copyrighted in 1997. It is now 2011. There have been new discoveries
and related ideas about origins in nearly 15 years since Guth completed his book. However
the questions of “where did the laws come from?” and “what is it that determines the
laws of physics?” still remain without scientific answers.
New data is generating increasingly difficult questions about the validity of a single Big
Bang. Increasing concerns about the validity of the Big Bang theory are reflected in the
descriptions of three articles featured on covers of the Scientific American.
The descriptions of three such articles found on the covers are:
March 2008 “The End of Cosmology? - evidence of the Big Bang is disappearing as
the universe expands (2)”
January 2010 “Life in the Multiverse - Could the strange physics of other worlds
bread life?(3)”
April 2011 “Quantum Gaps in the Big Bang Theory - Why our best explanation of
how the universe evolved must be fixed or replaced (4),
Unreconciled anomalies in a single Big Bang theory are also recognized in Stephen
Hawking’s and Leonard Mlodinow’s 2010 book the grand design (5). An alternative that is
discussed is M-Theory. M-Theory currently has 11 space-time dimensions. This is one
more than string-theory. Some string theorists had suspected an additional dimension was
-1-
needed and recent theoretical work confirmed their suspicions (5 -pp.116-119). . M-theory allows
for 10(500) possible solutions. Each theoretically could represent different laws of physics for
a universe. Many, perhaps most, would have laws that would not support life. But, at least
one, our universe has laws that support life. With this many possibilities there would also
be an immense amount of time were many things might happen.
What is science? String theory has yet to make testable experimental predictions.
Consequently, this leads some to claim that string theory fails the test of science (IR25).
Similarly one might claim that M-theory also fails the test of science. Hawkins and Mlodinow
note that if some being could analyze the predicted laws for each of the universes at the
rate of one per millisecond they would have accomplish this for only 10(20) of the10(500)
possibilities if they had been working nonstop without sleep or coffee break since the
beginning of the Big Bang (5 -p..118).
In their last chapter Hawkins and Mlodinow correctly state that: “the laws of nature tell us
how the universe behaves, but they don’t answer the why?” Three questions are restated
that were posed at the beginning of their book:
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why do we exist?
Why this set of laws and not some other?
They claim that those who contend the answer to these questions relates to a creator God
have merely deflected the question to that of “who created God.” They assert it is possible
to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, without invoking divine beings.
If by science, they include the “laws of nature” or “natural law”, the question “where did
the laws come from?” would still remain unanswered (5 -p..118).
How did life originate from non-life?
In addition to the cosmological questions about the origin of matter and nature of the
universe (universes?) which make it possible for life to exist there were questions about
“how did life originate from non-life?”
The quest for a first living organism has been very elusive. There have been various
proposals but no evidence or strategy which could validate any given proposal. Even the
simplest cells are very complex. Bringing the chemistry together as a result of natural laws
to form the simplest known living cell(s) seems beyond comprehension. The need for a
very simple life form is expressed in the literature. This is reflected on the cover of the 2007
Scientific American.
June 2007 “Did this molecule start life? Forget DNA RNA. Maybe it all began with
something much simpler (6).”
-2-
In the cover featured article Robert Shapiro outlines obstacles to first-life beginning
something as complicated as RNA or DNA (6). He uses complexity observations about firstlife involving RNA or DNA to support the need for a much simpler first-life chemistry. He
concludes with an optimistic assertion and quote from biologist Stuart Kauffman: “if this is
all true, life is vastly more probable than we have supposed. Not only are we at home in the
universe, but we are far more likely to share it with as yet unknown companions.”
Schapiro’s case supporting that first-life must be very simple was well done.
But, any testable approach to identifying the simple first-life form remains undone.
Is There Enough Time for Abiogenesis and Evolution ?
The more complicated a first life form is, the less likely that the needed chemistry will come
together via randomness or some unknown natural process. Schapiro’s case for having a
very simple first life form seeks to addresses abiogenesis issue (6). Micro followed by
macro evolution cannot begin via “survival of the fittest” until there’s life!
Wilf and Evans, ( from the departments of Mathematics and Biology (respectively) of the
University of Pennsylvania, optimistically declare in the title of a 2010 Internet article that
“There’s plenty of time for evolution (IR-11).” They base their assertion on a proposed theory
which relates to radix-exchange sorting from theoretical computer science and the
asymptotic analysis of certain squares that occur there.
Under a traditional paradigm, if a guess of letters (K possible letters) in a word of length L
is not correct the process is repeated until the correct word is obtained. Under this paradigm
the mean rounds of guessing are KL (K to the Lth power).
Wilf and Evens theory reduces the estimated KL mutations to about K log L, where L stands
for the length of the genomic “word”, and K is the number of possible “letters” that can
occupy any position in the word. Their proposed paradigm shift involves that “after
guessing each of the letters, we are told which (if any) of the guest words are correct
and then those letters are retained.” They use an example of K=40 letter alphabet and
a word length of 20,000. Using the traditional paradigm KL would equal about 1034,040
needed guesses. Their alternate theory approach would need only about 390 guesses (IR-11).
The key to Wilf and Evans theory is being told “which (if any)of the guest words are
correct and then those words are retained.” The only concept from evolutionary theory
which might correspond to “being told” is “survival of the fittest.” The only other alternative
would be that there is some yet unidentified dimension of “Natural Law” which would tell
what guesses were correct. Even if this is identified, which is unlikely, the question that still
remains is - “Where did the laws come from?”
-3-
Wilf and Evans gave no strategies that negate the KL paradigm for abiogenesis. Until
there’s life the KL paradigm still holds sense without life forms there is no “survival
of the fittest” needed to support the Wilf and Evans theory. Further, they did not
address the issue of how intermediate molecular structures might work before a transition
was complete in the way that was needed.
The simplest life form known at this time is bacteria (IR-15). Bacteria have a chromosome,
genes, RNA, DNA, proteins, enzymes, etc. ... Most have cell walls, with Mycoplasma being
a noted exception.
Enzymes determine the rates of reaction(s). Changes that affect a rate of reaction in the
wrong way would result in the death of the bacteria. This means that acceptable rates of
reaction would have to be maintained through each step toward the final goal. The wrong
change in any enzyme could result in the destruction of the bacteria. This would terminate
the process of a simple life form moving toward more complex life form(s).
Most cells contain about a thousand different enzymes, each capable of catalyzing
a unique chemical reaction. (IR-10) Even the simplest known bacteria have some enzymes.
They also have a single chromosome which has genes. Initial experimental studies
collectively indicate that life in its most trip down form requires somewhere between 200 to
500 genes (8 -p.60). Genes have both DNA and RNA (IR-20). Two classes of biochemicals
interact to form the cell walls or cell membranes: lipids and proteins (8 -p.45). Chapter 2 of
Fazale Rana’s 2008 book “The Cells Design” provides a moderately detailed description of
the architecture of eukaryotic cells, (cells with as nucleu), and prokayyotic cells (cells
without a nucleus). Additional information about various parts of the cell and the functioning
of his chemistry may be found in the Internet references 1 and 9-22.
As with any system, whether man made or from nature, there are multiple components and
relations between the components that must function successfully for the system to
accomplish its intended goals. Failures of specific components or dysfunctional relations
(Interactions) between components can result in system failures.
When one considers the complexity of the simplest life-forms, bacteria, or more complicated
cells Michael Behe’s assertions concerning “irreducible complexity”(6 and 7) are very rational.
“Irreducible complexity” as it relates to single cell living organisms is just the tip of the
iceberg. Many functions in nature related to soil, energy, and support of more complex
organisms seems to be dependent upon bacteria. When symbiotic relations are discussed
on a macro scale, could there also symbiotic issues in those systems on a micro scale - at
the bacterial level?
Could the human body function without bacterial systems? It seems unlikely. The
human body has about 100 trillion cells of its own. In addition it carries about 10 times as
many micro organisms which facilitate digestion. These gut bacteria found in the intestines
play such an essential role in digestion that they are sometimes referred to as a “forgotten
-4-
organ” It is estimated that these bacteria have about 100 times as many genes in
aggregate, as in the human genome (IR-23).
Randomness Is Not an Answer to the Issues of Origins !
The complexity of the simplest known living organisms illustrates why anyone believing that
abiogenesis occurred without intelligent design from the chemical stew resulting from a Big
Bang would postulate the need for very-very simple first life for. Could any very simple life
form function without enzymes that control the rates of reaction important to its existence?
When one examines how known simple life forms function enzymes seem essential.
If the chemistry of a first simple life form was no more complex than a well-known enzyme,
Ribonuclease A, what is the likelihood that it could be generated in an ideal chemical stew
from randomness? The Appendix examines the randomness probability if a stew could
generate 1 mole attempts per second.
If attempts began almost immediately after the Big Bang at a rate of 1 mole attempts a
second the mass generated would now be about .001 the mass of the Earth It would take
more than 10157 times longer than the estimated age of the universe before there
would be enough time to generate one of each possibility, provided there were no
duplicates! ! ! Long before that the attempts would’ve had stopped because of lack of
material.
There is agreement between creationists, theistic evolutionists, and atheistic evolutionists
that: Randomness Is Not an Answer to Abiogenesis. There also seems to be agreement
between creationists,and atheistic cosmologists that: Randomness Does Not Explain the
Existence of the Universe.
As noted earlier some suggested that if they understood all the laws of nature they would
be able to explain how things happened. Even if science understood all the laws of
nature and these explained origins - how the universe came into existence and how
life began there would still be the question: “WHERE DID THE LAWS COME FROM?”
Micro-evolution Versus Macro-evolution
Abiogenesis is the study of how biological life may have developed from inorganic matter
through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Questions about
the origin of life, how life came from non-life are questions about Abiogenesis. Biological
evolution does not address abiogenesis. Biological evolution does not occur until there are
living organisms.
Genetic adaptation, of living organisms to environmental circumstances is observed and
-5-
referred to as micro-evolution. For millenniums farmers have used: (1) selective breeding
to improve the quality of livestock, (2) selective seeds via cross pollination to improve the
quality of crops and (3) grafting to improve the fruit of plants and trees. Genetic adaptation
theory is helpful to medical research, agricultural research and other areas. Some forms of
such research are referred to as genetic engineering.
Observable micro-evolution is used to support the more general evolutionary theory of
macro-evolution. Macro-evolution deals with change that occurs at or above the level of
species - families, phyla or genera. The simplest level of macro-evolution is the splitting of
a species into two separate species. Macro-evolutionary theory involves long periods
of time, millions of years. Consequently, macro -volution goes beyond what can be
supported by observation, validated by experimentation. This means that macroevolution theory is dependent upon generalizations of micro-evolution combined with
interpretations of the fossil record. Macro-evolution does not include abiogenesis.
Evolutionary theory in general does not attempt to provide a theory for:
1.
the entire substance of the universe suddenly coming from a mathematical
singularity which has no size nor mass (the Big Bang ).
2.
enough time since the Big Bang to develop the organic chemical
complexity needed for life.
3.
having all the right ingredients needed for complex reactions in one place.
4.
life from non-life and other abiogenesis issues
5.
the origin of the laws of nature even if such laws could be found that
would explain one through four.
Some would include a violation of the second law of thermodynamics in the above list.
However, this seems redundant within the context of the Big Bang.
Although Evolutionary theory does not address the above five items there are scientists
who seek explanations for at least the first four. Those who believe in a Creator God have faith
in simple a answer for all five items.
GOD CREATED AND SUSTAINS ALL THINGS IN HIS WAY AND IN HIS TIME.
-6-
Appendix
Randomness Is Not an Answer
To the Generation of Life Enabling Chemistry
The most abundant and diverse molecules found in living cells are proteins. Proteins
are macromolecules with one or more polypeptide chains having a characteristic sequence
of amino acids linked by peptide bonds (IR-1). Their molar mass may be more than 100,000 Da.
For the purposes of illustration concerning time and randomness a simple but important
enzyme molecule Ribonuclease A will be used, a nuclease that catalyzes the hydrolysis of
specific phosphodiester linkages of RNA (IR-2). Ribonuclease has 124 amino acid residues
linked in a single chain. A residue is a single unit within a polymer, for example, an amino acid
within a polypeptide chain. There are 20 different amino acids used by life forms chemistry.
Thus, this single chain has 20124 possible arrangements (20124 = 2.12 x 10161). Each amino
acid may be of a form that is referred to as left-handed or right-handed. Life related amino
acids are all left-handed. If handedness is taken into consideration there (40124 = 4.52 x 10198)
possible arrangements. It is common to represent each amino acid by a different letter when
illustrating their arrangement in a chain. An arrangement of Ribonuclease A using this
approach follows:
KETAAAKFERQHMDSSTSAASSSNYCNQMMKSRNLTKDRCKPVNTFVHESLADVQAVC
SQKNVACKNGQTNCYQSYSTMSITDCRETGSSKYPNCAYKTTQANKHIIVACEGNPYVP
VHFDASV (Chemical Reviews, 1998, Vol. 98, No. 3, p. 1060) (IR-2)
“The molecular formula of the native, uncharged enzyme is C575H907N171O192S12. This formula
corresponds to a molecular mass of 13 686 Da.” (Chemical Reviews, 1998, Vol. 98, No. 3, p. 1047)(IR-2)
This means 1 mole of (6.225 x 1023 molecules) would have a mass of 13.686Kg
Let’s suppose with some form of a super catalyst in an ideal amino acid soup it was possible
to construct 1 mole second of the more than 4.52x10198 possible arrangements of the 124
amino acid residues. At this rate 1.99044x1031 molecule attempts to make Ribonuclease A
would be made per year (Seconds/year x Avogadro’s Constant (IR-3,IR-4,IR-5) equals 1.99044x1031
(60x60x24x365.25 x 6.02214179x1023 = 1.99044x1031).
To make 4.52 x 10198 (40124 = 4.52 x 10198) at 1.99044x1031 attempts per year would take more
than 2.26 x10167 years. However. the estimated age of the universe is less than14 billion years
(1.375x1010 years)(IR-6) . 2.26 x10167 years is more than 10157 times longer than the
estimated age of the universe ! ! !
Should the result of each attempt be kept, at the rate of 1 mole attempts per second by the
end of a year there would be 4.31x 1011. Kg of material = (60x60x24x365.25) x13.686kg)=
(seconds/year x mass of mole of Ribonuclease A).
There are different ways to estimating the mass of the universe. Values rang from about
-7-
1051kg to 1.6x1061 kg. The largest value, 1.6x1061 kg.(IR-8) will be used in calculations.
This means that in (1.6 × 1061.)/(4.31x 1011.) or 3.71x1049 years if the attempts were kept their
mass could be as great than an estimated mass of the universe. This amount of time would
still have to be multiplied by more than 10117 before one of each possibility could be made at
the rate of one mole per second!
It is clear that keeping the attempts in a finite universe will not work. It is also clear that
there is not enough time in the age of the universe to expect randomness to work.
Even if Ribonuclease A is made in a random process, what would determine that the
Ribonuclease A had been made and it was what was needed?
Ribonuclease A is a relatively short enzyme, polypeptide protein chain. “Most cells contain
about a thousand different enzymes, each capable of catalyzing a unique chemical
reaction.(IR-10)” It is not unusual for enzyme reaction rates to be millions of times faster than
those of comparable un-catalyzed reactions. The rate acceleration conferred by orotate
decarboxylase is a 1017-fold increase over the uncatalyzed reaction, in this case, 78 million
years without the enzyme versus18 milliseconds with the enzyme (IR-1,IR-9).
-8-
Available Internet References (IR)
The Internet References have been put in the order in which they were used in the appendix.
If a person has a PDF copy of the article and appendix on a computer with appropriate
software and Internet access the addresses can be copied to their web browser as a means
of viewing the topical reference material used in the appendix and occasionally elsewhere.
In the text the specific references use the IR – number notation .
IR-1.
IR-2.
IR-3.
IR-4.
IR-5.
Protein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein
Ribonuclease A http://www.uta.edu/faculty/sawasthi/E nzym ology-4351-5324/C lass% 20S yllabus% 20E nzym ology/ribonucleaseA .pdf
Avogadro constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_constant
Molar mass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molar_mass
Mole, Avogadro Constant & Molar Mass
http://www.onlinem athlearning.com /m olar-m ass.htm l
IR-6. Estimated Age of Universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
IR-7. Mass of Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_mass
IR-8. Mass of Universe http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/KristineMcPherson.shtml
IR-9. A Proficient Enzyme http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/267/5194/90
IR-10. Dogma, DNA, and Enzymes
http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Dogma_DNA_and_Enzymes.php
IR-11. There’s plenty of time for evolution http://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.5178v1
IR-12. Enhanced Applied Bioremediation
PDF Address
http://www.integraenvironmental.com/techart1.ht
http://www.integraenvironmental.com/pdfs/Enhanced%20Applied%20Bioremediation.pdfhttp
IR-13. Abiogenesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
IR-14. A Simpler Origin for Life http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-simpler-origin-for-life
IR-15. What is the simplest living organism?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_simplest_living_organism
Bacteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria
Bacteria cell structure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_cell_structe
Understanding Bacteria and Enzymes http://www.theallineed.com/biology/07091980.htm
Chromosome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome
Gene http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene
Mycoplasma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma
Human Microbiome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microbiome
Gut Flora http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_flora
Researchers Examine How Cells Change the Pace of Their Steps
http://www.theallineed.com/biology/07082306.htm
IR-25. String Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
IR-16
IR-17.
IR-18.
IR-19.
IR-20.
IR-21.
IR-22.
IR-23.
IR-24.
-9-
Non-Internet References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origin, by Alan H. Guth
Perseus Books, (Reading Massachusetts, 1997)
Lawrence M Krauss and Robert J Scherrer “ the End of Cosmolog? - An accelerating universe wipes
out traces of its own origins” Scientific American, March 2008 Vol. 298 Number 3, pp 46-53.
Alejaddro Jenkins and Gilad Perez “ Looking for Life in the MULTIVERSE - Universes with
different physical laws might still be habitable” Scientific American, January 2010 Vol. 302 Number
1, pp 44-47.
Paul J. Steinhardt, “The Inflationary Debate - is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply
flawed?” Scientific American, April 2011 vol. 304, number 4, pp. 36 - 43.
Stephen Hawkins and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design. (New York: Bantam Books 2010).
Robert Shapiro, “A Simpler Origin for Life - The sudden appearance of a large self copying
molecule each as RNA was exceedingly improbable. Energy driven networks of small molecules
for better odds as the initiators life.” Scientific American, June 2007 Vol. 295, Number 6, pp. 46 53
Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biological Challenge to Evolution. (New York: The
Free Press,1996).
Michael J. Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. (New York: The
Free Press, 2007).
Fazake Rana, The Cells Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creators Artistry. (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Books, 2008).
Copyrighted Draft by R Moon June 29, 2011
C:\01BOB\ARTICLExRM\What is the UncausedCause07.wpd
-10-