Replies

It is not "about" biology - it is about information, how it arose in the genetic code. All of those requirements are aimed at keeping that perspective, i.e. they are not looking for yet another chemical abiogenesis hypothesis.

They're looking for both, actually, as well as quite a few other things -- probably because the more requirements they add, the more ways they can reject an application for addressing 99% of their topic, because it didn't cover a 1% side-issue they threw in.

Here are some examples of where they specifically require submissions to address biological issues:

[Applicants must provide] empirical correlation to the real world of biochemistry and molecular biology - not just mathematical or computer models
[must address] The ability of the genome to convey instructions, deliver orders, and actually produce the needed biological end-products
[must address] The bizarre concentration of singlehanded optical isomers (homochirality of enantiomers) in living things
By "mechanism," the Foundation means a scenario of sequential, cause-and-effect (or at least "functionally dependent"), empirically correlated events explaining how genetic prescriptive information (instruction) arose naturally within Nature sufficient to give rise to current life.
Any scientific life-origins theory must connect with "life" as we observe it
The hypothetical mechanism must demonstrate correspondence with "the real world" of biochemistry
Parallel computer models must similarly have direct empirical correlation with naturally occurring environmental, chemical, biochemical, and molecular biological scenarios.
model addresses biochemical problems such as the instability and difficulty with which ribonucleotides are made and activated; exclusively 3'5' beta-D-ribonucleotide phosphodiester linkages are established rather than 2'5' or 5'5'; deleterious cross-reactions are avoided; hydrolysis is prevented; and other issues of prebiotic plausibility

And so on.

Not only are submissions required to in effect explain all modern biology, but they are also required to be so comprehensive as to strike silent all possible concern about evolvability of any complex biological system whatsoever:

submission silences arguments of all-or-none "irreducible complexity" in evolving molecular machines and larger biosystems

And not only that, but the submission must be able to convince fans of "apparent design" that they are mistaken when they perceive "design" in any biological system (which needless to say goes vastly beyond merely demonstrating how life could have begun):

submission demonstrates that the "appearance or inference of design" in biosystems is only apparent rather than real

As I said earlier, the sponsors of the "prize" want to set the bar so high and difficult that they never have to pay out.

Thank you for your reply, Ichneumon! And thank you so much for the links, Doctor Stochastic!

I have re-reviewed your first reply and reviewed the second but haven’t gotten to Doctor Stochastic’s links yet. I went through all of your criticisms and dismissed each claim wherein you or another party have attributed motive to the people involved with the Origin of Life Foundation. They were dismissed because it is not possible to read another’s mind and even if it were, motive does not cancel truth. For instance, if a person accuses another of stealing as long as the charge is the truth it doesn’t matter that the motive was to slander the thief. In this case, if the search is valid then the motive – even if nefarious – would make no difference to its validity.

The discussion at the link you provided is very instructive indeed – particularly the response from the Origin-of-Life Foundation itself to the allegations of the effort being a hoax. Here is the full response for those interested:

The Origin-of-Life Foundation has been approached by Duane E. Salmon asking for a reply to dialogue on your forum. We are happy to respond, but would like to make plain that we are a science foundation. We do not participate in political, religious, or metaphysical debates.

The Origin-of-Life Prize is designed to foster focused attention on possible mechanisms of derivation of functional genetic information.

Once the Origin of Life Prize is officially announced in the journals, _we cannot keep changing the rules_. It is imperative that the larger scientific community get every opportunity to critique and suggest edits of the rules before beginning to accept submissions. Science does not always move as fast as we would like. We prefer to err in the direction of academic responsibility. This requires a great deal of scientific discussion and critique.

Some of the officers of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life requested that we slow down to give the full membership more time to get to know us at international meetings. Our Board of Directors agreed and voluntarily complied.

Other problems center around the definition of "life." If definitions are ambiguous in the rules, the judging process will become impossible. Professor Gulya Palyi has been soliciting "definitions" of "life" from many O. L. investigators around the world. We look forward to his published work and distillation of widely variant ideas among life-origin specialists.

Another hold-up has been describing the nature of "information." Shannon, and practically all information theorists since, have avoided pursuit of the "meaning" of information/message. Information theory concerns itself more with successful transmission of bit strings. Information theory is of course statistically based. Some investigators question how the randomness necessary for statistical applications can be correlated with instructional (functional) biomessage. We are interested in empirical chemical evolutionary mechanisms of self-organization -- of function out of stochasticity. Metabolism-first models must also address this question, not just RNA-world and information-first models.

The Gene Emergence Project involves investigators in forty different countries. Many judges are well-known, but no one individual is given prima dona status, including the Nobel laureates. Many well-known investigators such as Francis Crick and Sir Frederick Hoyle have written kind letters explaining that they have changed interests or are now getting up in years and regrettably cannot assume new academic responsibilities. Others like Stanley Miller explained that they were already too over committed to judge.

Some widely published and competent writers such as Daniel Dennett at Tufts modestly insist they are unqualified to judge! But most agree that the derivation of initial functional information/genetic instructions in nature is one of the most fundamental problems yet to be solved in science.

The Foundation wishes not to throw its weight behind any one model of life-origin. History has taught us the hard way to be careful of paradigm ruts. We wish to maintain an open-minded policy toward all models and combinations of models.

We make no apologies for including a judge with PhD's in two different fields (mathematics and philosophy) from widely respected universities who has received NSF fellowships at M.I.T. and Princeton, and who has published a Cambridge University Press book, among others. It's none of our business what personal metaphysical position any particular judge holds. Our wish is to be inclusive and pluralistic of all qualified scholars. Yet via the rules and in every communication, we are making clear to judges and others that the Foundation wants nothing to do with speculations better addressed by world religions or metaphysics.

No Foundation employee is permitted to participate in the judging of the Prize. All judging has been turned over to the larger scientific community itself. The rules have been open for critique and suggested edits now for almost two years. Frequently the suggestions we get are exactly opposite from one another, so sometimes it is difficult to do everything everybody wants us to do.

Our financial soundness is overseen by certified public accountants. Our audit has been submitted to the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life governing board. I am a member of this society, and attended ISSOL99.

The Origin-of-Life Prize is not about us. We seek no personal attention whatsoever. Our Foundation is about understanding the nature and derivation of functional information/genetic instructions, and about the pursuit of empirical accountability in theoretical physics, cybernetics models, and in the historical sciences. We make no apologies for de-emphasizing ourselves in favor of simply concentrating on the most fascinating pursuit in physics, biophysics, and cosmology.

Are there those who feel we are under obligation to them to justify our existence? Perhaps, but as a nonprofit science foundation, we have every right to give away Prize money for worthy scientific accomplishments without being subjected to anyone's inquisition. Anyone who doubts the legitimacy of the Prize offer is welcome not to submit.

As long as a well-known accounting firm's audit shows the money to be real, as long as we are not the ones doing the judging, and as long as we give the world's scientific community ample opportunity to critique the rules, what exactly would account for whining or "sour grapes" about The Gene Emergence Project, The Origin-of-Life Foundation, or the Origin-of-Life Prize? Is anyone seriously arguing that the judges are incompetent?

The Prize is not a hoax. The stimulus for research in this area is badly needed. Too many highly respected people are behind it. It will be formally announced in the journals when everything is in place. We have eschewed media interviews and coverage from the start. The project is not for the general public. The website exists for scientists who realize that to set up an international Prize of this magnitude and prestige takes time and a great deal of patient planning. It would have been far more suspicious if the project had appeared full-bloom overnight.

We expect to have the application forms back from legal counsel shortly.

I will be at the Gordon Life Origin Conference if anyone wishes to speak to me in person.

Thank you for voicing responsible concerns about the The Origin-of-Life Prize. Time will prove the legitimacy of this endeavor.

Dr. David L. Abel, Program Director
The Gene Emergence Project(R)
mailto:life@us.net

Again, as the above email states and as it shown in the discussion on the Origin of Life Prize website - the objective is not yet another chemical abiogenesis hypothesis. The foundation is specifically looking for a highly plausible materialistic origin for the information content in the genetic code. It’s not as if scientists weren’t already engaged in this quest. In fact, I have already offered a link to the most promising research known to me:

Syntactic Autonomy: Or Why There is no Autonomy Without Symbols and how Self-Organizing Systems Might Evolve Them

Luis Rocha recognizes the scientific challenge and has defined it well in the above article. He also suggests what the hurdles would be in an RNA world model and how they would need to be overcome. Rocha is not making a theological or metaphysical argument at all. His credentials are solid. Also, I believe Doctor Stochastic knows him personally and can confirm that he is a strict evolutionist.

I don’t know if Rocha will be competing for the prize, but if he were I’d suggest he ought to be in the lead because he focuses on the autonomy and symbol requirements which I personally agree are most important to any theory. His greatest challenge would be to meet the bar of “highly plausible” because of the state changes required for an information bootstrap in an RNA world. Here is his latest effort concerning the biological information mechanism post-origin:

Material Representations: From the Genetic Code to the evolution of Cellular Automata

But getting back to your primary objection:

I find the offer to be questionable mainly because the "science" discussion on the first several pages is full of buzzword gobbledegook and classic creationist canards/misunderstandings about evolution and science. Furthermore, the list of requirements is so long and unreasonably stringent (I doubt even quantum theory or relativity could pass the kind of hurdles this "offer" lays out) that contrary to their claim, the authors aren't asking for an "explanation" of the origins of life, they're demanding a fully complete, fully mature field in which all questions have been completely answered. Any submission that could actually meet their standards would pretty much close the book on an entire field of biology.

I had previously responded by noting:

To which you now counter as follows:

You followed with excerpts from the discussion concerning the biochemical aspects related to the rise of information.

Again, I first dismiss attribution of motive and concentrate on their discussion of the chemical and biological issues. If you read through the articles by Luis Rocha, I believe you will see that he also recognizes the need to exclude information theory only models.

IOW, it is one thing to prove that cellular automata is viable (von Neumann, Wolfram) – which is to say, self-organizing complexity is viable - but it is quite another to show how the initial conditions could cause biological self-organizing complexity to arise in nature. That is the entire point of the Origin of Life Prize.

Rocha’s work is centered around the information content, the autonomy and function of symbols necessary to give rise to autonomous self-organizing complexity. Even so, this alone does not answer the question of how such a thing could arise in nature. Thus, Rocha goes further to suggest the chemical mechanism required to give rise to autonomous biological self-organizing complexity. That is the depth of research the Foundation is seeking and why Rocha is the top contender known to me.

One of the goals of the prize is to silence “intelligent design” and “irreducible complexity”. I don’t understand why you, of all people, would object to such a goal. Or perhaps it is that you do not agree that the strongest materialistic argument against evolution (unassisted by intelligent agency) is the absence of a highly plausible explanation for the rise of information in the genetic code?