Latest update December 25th, 2024 1:10 AM
Jun 02, 2009 Letters
Dear Editor,
The primordial soup is a hypothesis not a theory. It can be compare to a scrambled jigsaw puzzle of a thousand odd pieces with two huge problems.
First problem: most of the pieces are not known to exist (raw materials and their processes).
Second problem: these thousand odd pieces assembled themselves into a living cell by random actions. John. D. Slutherland’s work with RNA is fascinating, but in my foregoing analogy all he has done is to find one of the many missing pieces of the puzzle and he admits the random problem remains untouched.
It would be a momentous occasion for science when all the pieces and processes are finally put together but what a theological and philosophical crisis it would be for some. I say some because science can only discover and manipulate the laws of nature it is not responsible for their reality.
I should think that what is most astounding in this matter is not the possibility of humanly engineering living cell/parts in the sophistication of a modern laboratory but the probability of it occurring by random actions in the chaotic primordial environment.
The working hypothesis of the primordial soup is a fascinating coming together of mathematic and science; too lengthy to deal with here. In brief the parameters have been drawn up to calculate the probability of non-living matter spontaneously becoming living cells based upon the complexity and composition of the cell, the ingredients of the primordial environment, time scale etc and the result is a near impossibility.( Hoyle and Wickramasinghe)
Even for the simplest protein DNA to form by chance the probability is one in 10 to the 500 power (10 followed by 500 zeroes) bear in mind that a cell is made up of different types of protein molecules.
There has been many resetting of the parameters but the results are always impossibility. We simply have no explanation as to how the mathematical orderliness and astounding complexity of the protein DNA could be arranged by random chance.
As important as the theory of the fundamental laws (GUT) is, it is built upon incomplete and unproven hypothesis and have been modified many times over and as such should not be used as a mechanism in the primordial process. An unproven theory cannot be used to prove another unproven theory this would be circus not science.
However the laws of thermodynamics shows that the natural environment has a tendency to work things downwards rather than upwards that is why synthesizing has to be done in highly controlled environment.
Any upward movement in a closed system usually requires an infusion of external energy, all may not be lost for the primordial soup if in light of this we are willing to consider the possibility that the process may have aided externally; even perhaps by higher powers?
Dr. Wickramasinghe has turned his attention to stardust looking for clues because of the primordial improbability; this is funny because he is now looking to the heavens for answers.
A. I. Gafoor
Dec 25, 2024
Over 70 entries in as $7M in prizes at stake By Samuel Whyte Kaieteur Sports- The time has come and the wait is over and its gallop time as the biggest event for the year-end season is set for the...Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- Ah, Christmas—the season of goodwill, good cheer, and, let’s not forget, good riddance!... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The year 2024 has underscored a grim reality: poverty continues to be an unyielding... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]