The problem is that, usually, there is more than one 'solution' to a given problem. So, it is very unlikely that the first life on Earth was based on proteins in the way that modern life is. SO, the question of the first protein is the wrong question. I will continue to talk about proteins in this, but in reality the issue is more likely to be questions about RNA sequences, not amino acid sequences.
Stop here and explain how the first RNA molecules would have to arise by unguided, non-biological chemical processes. RNA is not known to assemble without the help of a skilled laboratory chemist intelligently guiding the process. New York University chemist Robert Shapiro critiqued the efforts of those who tried to make RNA in the lab, stating: "The flaw is in the logic -- that this experimental control by researchers in a modern laboratory could have been available on the early Earth."
Richard Van Noorden, "RNA world easier to make,"
Nature news (May 13, 2009),
RNA world easier to make : Nature News
Second it is typically the case that a fairly large variety of different sequences of amino acids will do the same job as the one selected by those making the calculation. This is obvious simply because different species *today* using slightly different proteins for the exact same job. The usual calculations done completely ignore this aspect.
Second, while RNA has been shown to perform many roles in the cell, there is no evidence that it could perform all the necessary cellular functions currently carried out by proteins.
Third, these calculations target a *specific* protein and don't deal with the fact that many proteins with completely different roles would still be useful in the early stages. So, if 100 proteins were required, *any* of them would be good to make any step of the way. This 'which order' aspect is neglected in the calculations.
Third, the RNA world hypothesis does not explain the origin of genetic information.
Also, and we know this from observations, it is common for the new additions to a sequence to be promoted or discouraged by the previous pieces. This violates the independence required to make the calculation at all.
Next, the calculations for the extremely low odds of a cell ignore the fact that different stages will serve as springboards for later stages, thereby again destroying the assumption of independence required for the calculation.
And, finally, it is *common* in statistical mechanics to deal with situations with probabilities much, much less that 1 in 10^70. For example, the probability that all the molecules in this room will be in exactly the half of the room they are now in is 1 in 10^(10^26) at most. And this clearly *did* happen
RNA world advocates suggest that if the first self-replicating life was based upon RNA, it would have required a molecule between 200 and 300 nucleotides in length.
17 However, there are no known chemical or physical laws that dictate the order of those nucleotides. To explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10150 -- below the universal probability boundary, or events which are remotely possible to occur within the history of the universe. Shapiro puts the problem this way:
The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. … [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.
Fourth -- and most fundamentally -- the RNA world hypothesis does not explain the origin of the genetic code itself. In order to evolve into the DNA / protein-based life that exists today, the RNA world would need to evolve the ability to convert genetic information into proteins. However, this process of transcription and translation requires a large suite of proteins and molecular machines -- which themselves are encoded by genetic information. This poses a chicken-and-egg problem, where essential enzymes and molecular machines are needed to perform the very task that constructs them.
Any rebuttal from you? Can you find a fallacy in this argument?
To appreciate this problem, consider the origin of the first DVD and DVD player. DVDs are rich in information, but without the machinery of a DVD player to read the disk, process its information, and convert it into a picture and sound, the disk would be useless. But what if the instructions for building the first DVD player were only found encoded on a DVD? You could never play the DVD to learn how to build a DVD player. So how did the first disk and DVD player system arise? The answer is obvious: a goal directed process -- intelligent design -- is required to produce both the player and the disk at the same time.
In living cells, information-carrying molecules (e.g. DNA or RNA) are like the DVD, and the cellular machinery which reads that information and converts it into proteins are like the DVD player. Just like the DVD analogy, genetic information can never be converted into proteins without the proper machinery. Yet in cells, the machines required for processing the genetic information in RNA or DNA are encoded by those same genetic molecules -- they perform and direct the very task that builds them.
This system cannot exist unless both the genetic information and transcription / translation machinery are present at the same time, and unless both speak the same language. Biologist Frank Salisbury explained this problem in a paper in American Biology Teacher not long after the workings of the genetic code were first uncovered:
It's nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. … [T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. … How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It's as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment.
God bless God fearing Scientists working in the field of genetics.
The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution | Center for Science and Culture
Another Scientist writes, " the probability calculation that a specific ribozyme might assemble by chance. Assume that the ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long, and that at each position there could be any of four nucleotides present. The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300,
a number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 13 billion years, the age of the universe.
With the absence of a supernatural explanation for these problems, I look forward to more pie in the sky theories put forward by non believers.
Sure, even if there is some truth in that it proves diddly squat. Lots of scientists through the centuries were religious, you pretty much had to be back then if you valued your life. It doesn't add weight to their religious beliefs though.
