The brute force of “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
Question 6B: Structured to allow the existence of
chemically-based complex (‘living’) organisms, such as we see in our
current (and past) biosphere.
“Why -- rather than nothing–
-- is there something that looks
structured to allow ‘life’ as we know it?
-- and which contains basic elements which
can combine into compounds which form the basis for ALL lifeforms in our past
and present.
This is the question of ‘how or why’ the properties
of some (‘most’?) elements in the Periodic Table are such that they form
certain compounds (with ‘odd’ specificity) that are the major constituents of
ALL lifeforms in our biosphere.
We have noted the ‘oddness’ of the
EXISTENCE of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. – (Hoyle’s discovery)—but not WHY
they are so important to life (especially carbon) and would this be ‘expected’
at all – in a something from nothing scenario. Or is this something ELSE
that looks ‘contrived’?
When we start looking
into THIS topic, we become aware of NEW levels of complexity and even
‘collaboration’(e.g., how some chemical bonds are directional?) between the
pieces. Some are direct consequences of the physical factors we just discussed,
but at a system level – in which they interact – the patterns seems –again—very
‘contrived’.
[Note:
There is too much material here to give page numbers/etc., but the relevant
material can be easily found in the main four works cited here. Although the
material is heavily footnoted to academic and ‘secular’ sources, I have only
retained a few of the footnotes—if somebody wanted to validate/check their
statements.
[There
are a lot of ‘numbers’ in here, but it should be easy to scan for the
CONCLUSIONS and/or OBSERVATIONS the authors draw from the data.
[The
sources of the quotes are indicated by simple ‘cited in’ refs:
·
(cited
in/from Miracle*) –
Denton,
Michael. The Miracle of the Cell (Privileged Species Series).
·
(cited
in/from Privileged*) –
Gonzalez,
Guillermo; Richards, Jay W.. The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the
Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery
·
(cited
in/from Fit*) –
Rana, Fazale. Fit for a Purpose: Does the Anthropic Principle
Include Biochemistry?
·
(cited
in/from Improbable*) –
Ross, Hugh. Improbable
Planet: How Earth Became Humanity's Home
ELEMENTS /
COMPOUNDS
Carbon
We already noted how
‘odd’ it was that Carbon could even be MADE in the universe (the Hoyle thing),
but as the basic of organic and biological materials, we want to see how
‘special’ (i.e. ‘unexpected’) this element might be.
One:
It stands alone in its ability to form so many IMPORTANT compounds
(cited
in/from Miracle*)
“THE
DEVELOPMENT of organic chemistry is one of the great episodes in the history of
science, and was described by Henderson as
“one of the greatest achievements of the nineteenth century.” Others concur. Jan Mulder entitled a paper reviewing its
development as “Looking Back in Wonder.”17
Many other authors, including Asimov18 and Alfred Russel Wallace, co-founder with Charles
Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection, have waxed lyrical
about the wondrous universe of carbon chemistry.
“By
the beginning of the twentieth century, more than 100,000 organic compounds had
been documented.19 And all the basic compounds of living organisms—the
twenty common amino acids used in proteins and the four nucleotides used in
DNA, as well as many of the sugars and fats and fatty acids found in living
organisms—had been synthesized in the lab.
“Of
all the elements, carbon stands alone in its ability to form a vast array of complex
organic compounds with diverse chemical and physical properties. Indeed, the
number of known carbon compounds is currently estimated to be close to ten
million, greater than the total of all other non-carbon compounds combined and
much larger than Henderson’s estimate from a century ago.”
17. J. J. C. Mulder,
“Theoretical Organic Chemistry: Looking Back in Wonder,” in Theoretical Organic
Chemistry, ed. C. Párkányi (New York: Elsevier,
1997), 1–32.
18. Isaac Asimov, A Short
History of Chemistry (New York: Anchor Books, 1965), 98–99. 19. Henderson,
Fitness, 193.
(cited
in/from Miracle*)
“And
aside from molecules that include carbon, there are many molecules that
contain only carbon. Carbon makes up substances as diverse as coal,
diamond (the hardest mineral known), and graphite (one of the softest), as well
as complex structures such as fullerenes and nano-tubes. In recent decades
chemists announced the discovery of another carbon compound, graphene, which
consists of a flat monolayer of carbon atoms packed tightly into a
two-dimensional honeycomb arrangement. Its most remarkable characteristic is
its strength: it is one hundred times stronger than an equivalent monolayer of
steel. Graphene conducts electricity as well as copper does, and conducts heat
better than can any known material.”
Two:
It is UNIQUE in its ability to bond with itself so massively: Carbon-Carbon
Bonds
(cited
in/from Miracle*)
“Of
all the atoms of the periodic kingdom, including carbon’s three associates
which make up the substance of organic compounds—hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), and
nitrogen (N), only carbon can bond firmly with
itself to form chains of atoms (i.e., C-C-C-C) of almost unlimited
length. In this ability, carbon is unique.
No other atom in ambient conditions, not oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, or
silicon, possesses this ability to anything like the same degree as
carbon.
“More
than anything, it is the stability of carbon-carbon bonding that enables
organic compounds to grow to almost unlimited size and complexity. In the
case of organic molecules containing carbon, as Asimov put it, “Carbon atoms can join one another to
form long chains or numerous rings and then join with other kinds of atoms as
well. Very large molecules may be formed in this way without becoming too
rickety to exist. It is not at all unusual for an organic molecule to contain a
million atoms.” Large molecules even remotely as complex as proteins or other
macromolecules are simply unknown outside the domain of organic chemistry. Many
authors have stressed this. As Primo Levi
puts it, “Carbon, in fact, is a singular element: it is the only element that can bind itself in long stable chains
without a great expense of energy, and for life on earth (the only
one we know so far) precisely long chains are required. Therefore carbon
is the key element of living substance.”26
Three:
The variety of compounds it can make is unrivalled
(cited
in/from Miracle*)
“However,
the diversity of chemical forms that can be assembled using carbon alone pales
against the fantastic diversity of compounds that can be assembled when carbon
combines with other atoms.
“Carbon
and hydrogen
combinations form the universe of hydrocarbons. Some hydrocarbons are long,
chain-like molecules, such as pentane and butene. Others contain cyclic or
ring-like formations, such as benzene. And it is not just the number of
chemical structures that dazzles, but also the variety and diversity of
properties. Plastic milk jugs, DVD discs, oils, petroleum, kerosene, and
naphthalene (moth balls) are all combinations of carbon and hydrogen atoms.
“Combining
carbon with both hydrogen and oxygen opens another universe of compounds,
including alcohols such as ethanol and propanol, aldehydes, ketones, and the
carboxylic acids. This combination also creates the vast variety of fatty
acids, composed of a long hydrocarbon chain that is attached to a carboxylic
acid group at one end. Carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen are also responsible for
the sugars, including glucose and fructose. Beyond that, this triad creates
cellulose (the hard substance of wood), beeswax, vinegar, and formic acid. All
of these belong to this group of carbon compounds.
“Throwing
nitrogen into the mix
leads to a further multiplicity of compounds, including the building blocks
of proteins: amino acids. It also creates a set of cyclic compounds known
as the nitrogenous bases, some of which are important building blocks of DNA.
This combination is found in items as diverse as dyes, antibiotics, explosives,
caffeine, and urine.”
“The
total number and diversity of possible chemical structures that may be
constructed out of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen staggers the
imagination.
Together, these elements form what is in effect a universal chemical
constructor kit ideally suited for the construction of the myriads of chemical
compounds the cell employs. The need for such a vast inventory of organic
compounds is indicated to a degree by published metabolic pathway charts. The
charts show the maze of chemical pathways and the huge number of different
compounds which undergo chemical transformations in the course of metabolism in
a typical cell.
“Its
relative un-reactivity adds to the impression that it is mundane compared with
other more spectacular and reactive atoms like sodium or oxygen. As chemist Peter Atkins comments, carbon seems in
terms of reactivity a “particularly mediocre” atom and “easygoing in the
liaisons it forms.”
“But
carbon does have chemical fecundity, which elevates it into a category all its
own, creating the vast array of chemical combinations described above. For this
reason, Atkins termed carbon “the
King of the Periodic Kingdom.”23
“Certainly
without the vast inventory of complex molecules of utterly diverse chemical
properties gifted to us via the unique properties of this king of atoms, there
would be no organic plenitude to satisfy the complex metabolic needs of the
cell. In all probability, there would be no chemical life in the
universe. Atkins goes so far as to say
that the “property we term ‘life’ stems almost in its entirety” from the region
of the kingdom containing carbon.24
Four:
And everybody knows this…
(cited
in/from Miracle*)
“That
the carbon atom is uniquely fit for the chemistry of life is not the view of an
esoteric minority of researchers or of any special pleading. The peerless
fitness of the carbon atom to build a universe of diverse chemicals and
fantastically complex macromolecules like proteins and DNA has been recognized by
the majority of authors and researchers cognizant of the facts. This has been
the case for more than a century.
Five:
The Strength of its Organic Bonds is firmly in the Goldilocks zone.
(cited
in/from Miracle*)
“If
organic bonds were substantially stronger in the ambient temperature
range, say as strong as in many inorganic compounds which may be two to three
times as strong33 (and which can only be broken by heating to very high
temperatures), protein movements could not significantly weaken particular
bonds, i.e., decrease the activation barrier for particular reactions.
Consequently, the sorts of controlled chemical reactions carried out in living
cells would be greatly constrained. Moreover, not only would proteins be unable
to exert sufficient conformational strain to significantly weaken particular
bonds, but molecular collisions in the ambient temperature range would only
very rarely impart sufficient energy to overcome energy barriers and cause
bonds to break. On the other hand, if organic bonds were substantially
weaker in the ambient temperature range, disruption via molecular
collisions would dominate and no controlled chemistry would be possible.
It turns out that the actual strength of organic
bonds, as with so many other examples of the fitness of nature for life, is
situated in a Goldilocks zone, neither too strong nor too weak, but just right.
If the bonds were stronger or weaker by a single order of magnitude, the
controlled chemistry of the cell would very likely be impossible. And it is
surely an arresting fact, testimony to the prior fitness of nature for
carbon-based life, that this Goldilocks zone represents an inconceivably
tiny band in the vast spread of energy levels in the cosmos.
Six:
Its electronegativity position fits perfectly with that of its main
partners
(cited
in/from Miracle*)
“The
way the different electronegativities of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen
work together towards the formation of the cell membrane and the folding of
proteins is amazing. On the one hand, the electrical asymmetry of
oxygen-hydrogen bonds leads to the hydrophilic character of water and is the
source of the hydrophobic force, which clumps the insoluble non-polar
hydrocarbons into the bilayer membranes and clumps the hydrophobic amino acid
side chains into the center of proteins. On the other hand, the electrical
symmetry of carbon-hydrogen bonds makes the clumping possible by conferring on
long hydrocarbon chains their non-polar, hydrophobic, water-avoiding behavior.
“At
the heart of cellular life is an extraordinary reciprocal fitness
between the non-polar carbon-hydrogen (C-H) bonds and the polar oxygen-hydrogen
(O-H) bonds. This reciprocity gifts life with the cell membrane and the folding
of proteins. If the electronegativity of hydrogen,
carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen had been the same, unquestionably there would be
no carbon-based life on Earth. The cosmos has only come to life because of the
different electronegativities of the four collaborators.
“Carbon-based
life likely would be impossible if the electronegativities of hydrogen (H),
carbon (C), oxygen (O), and nitrogen (N) were even slightly different from what
they are.
So, for example, imagine a world where the electronegativities of these four
elements were closer to one another, a world devoid of polar molecules.
Alternately, Alternately, envision a world where C-H bonds were polar and O-H
and O-N bonds non-polar. Neither of these imagined worlds would contain
carbon-based life, even if all the other properties of these four elements
were exactly the same. And not because we lack the imagination to see how life
could manage in these counterfactual worlds. Just the opposite. We can assert
the impossibility precisely because molecular biologists have done the
painstaking work of uncovering the wonder manifest in this unique band of
atoms. The unique capacity of carbon to bond with itself, its capacity to form
multiple bonds, the metastability of so many carbon compounds, the
directionality and strength of the covalent bonds of carbon and its nonmetal
compatriots, the existence of weak chemical forces such as van der Waals forces
and weak ionic bonds of appropriate strength for lock-and-key bonding—all
these would be useless without the fine-tuning of the relative
electronegativities of oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen. Only when the whole
suite of fitness is complete can the miracle of the cell be actualized.
Seven:
Its bond type (strong covalent) generates SPATIAL structures—critical to life.
(cited
in/from Miracle*)
“What
is unarguable, however, is that the functions of all the macromolecules in
current biological systems on Earth depend critically on the ability to
deploy multiple atoms (sometimes thousands) in very specific irregular spatial conformations. And one can assume that
even artificial life, if we ever invent it—and alien life, if it exists—also
will depend on highly specific 3-D molecular conformations of their chemical
components. No chemical life that we can conceive of (and many definitions are
given in the literature19) would be feasible without complex molecular
machines that can carry out defined tasks. And any sort of molecular machines
that can carry out specific biochemical functions would necessarily depend on
highly precise and stable 3-D arrangements of atoms. For instance, enzymes
catalyze life-essential processes by binding to specific substrates, increasing
the rate of conversion to an end product by
thousands, or even millions, of times per second.20 No enzyme could
manage any such task unless the atoms around the active site were deployed in very
exact spatial arrangements to bind the substrate.
“THE
ARRANGEMENT of atoms in complex bio-macromolecules into highly specific 3-D
conformations depends on two types of chemical bonds, strong or covalent
bonds (discussed in the previous chapter) and another set of quite different
bonds, what are called weak bonds.
“In
organic compounds, all the bonds between the constituent atoms, such as
C-H, C-O, C-N, and N-O bonds, are strong covalent electron-sharing bonds. The
crucial feature of covalent bonds is that they are spatially constrained by
the existence of other bonds in the molecule. In other words, the bonds are directional. As Peter Atkins explains about covalent bonding,
“The ability of an atom partially to release electrons to form a covalent bond
in one direction will affect its ability to release them in a different
direction. As a result, the arrangement of atoms in a molecule has a fixed,
characteristic geometry… covalent compounds… are discrete, often small
groupings of atoms… with characteristic shapes.”
“The
fact that the bonds in the molecular building blocks of the cell’s key
macromolecules are directional and spatially
constrained is of very great consequence. Why? Because a complex
macromolecule in which all the atoms must be deployed in stable, specific
spatial arrangements, to serve particular biological functions, cannot be
assembled from subunits in which the bonds are not directional and spatially
constrained.
“That
the periodic table of elements should contain, in the region Atkins calls
“the upper triangle of the Eastern Rectangle,” a set of atoms including carbon
(C), nitrogen (N), oxygen (O), and hydrogen (H), as well as phosphorus (P) and
sulfur (S), possessing bonds of just the right
strength for chemical manipulation in the cell as well as the crucial directional property, is
surely indicative of a deep fitness in nature for carbon-based life.
Water
This is known to be
one of the most unusual chemicals in our universe (fortunately for life).
One:
Its properties are ‘anomalous’ (i.e. ‘Unexpected’) but critical for life!
(cited
in/from Miracle*)
“Water
is the most important liquid for our existence and plays an essential role in
physics, chemistry, biology and geoscience. What makes water unique is not only
its importance but also the anomalous behaviour of
many of its macroscopic properties.… If water would not behave in this
unusual way it is most questionable if life could have developed on planet
Earth. —ANDERS NILSSON AND LARS G. M. PETTERSSON 1
1
Anders Nilsson and Lars G. M. Pettersson, “The Structural Origin of Anomalous
Properties of Liquid Water,” Nature Communications 6 (December 8, 2015): 8998,
https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9998.
(cited
in/from Miracle*)
“Water
plays a wide variety of roles in biochemical processes. It maintains
macromolecular structure and mediates molecular recognition, it activates and
modulates protein dynamics, it provides a switchable communication channel
across membranes and between the inside and outside of proteins. Many of these
properties do seem to depend, to a greater or lesser degree, on the “special” attributes of the H2O molecule,
in particular its ability to engage in directional, weak bonding in a way that
allows for reorientation and reconfiguration of discrete and identifiable
three-dimensional structures. Thus, although it seems entirely likely that some
of water’s functions in biology are those of a generic polar solvent rather
than being unique to water itself, it is very hard to imagine any other
solvent that could fulfill all of its roles—or even all of those that help
to distinguish a generic polypeptide chain from a fully functioning protein.32
32
Philip Ball, “Water as an Active Constituent in Cell Biology,” Chemical
Reviews 108, no. 1 (2008), 103.
(cited
in/from Fit*)
“This
all-too-common, all-too-familiar liquid is, in fact, one of the most
unusual, anomalous materials that exist. And the unusual, odd properties of
water seem, precisely, to be the very properties required for life to
even be possible. This is how biologist Simon
Conway Morris and physicist Ard Louis
describe water:
“Colorless,
transparent, and tasteless, the substance we call water is ubiquitous and
commonplace. Arguably, it is also the strangest liquid in the universe with
many peculiar counterintuitive properties that, it is widely proposed, are
central to the existence of life. . . . Water is a “strange and eccentric”
liquid. The anomalies of water, unsurprisingly, have been recruited by those
who see an intriguing, if not suspicious, fitness to purpose, so far as
life is concerned.” [41]
[41] Simon Conway Morris
and Ard A. Louis, “Is Water an Amniotic Eden or a Corrosive Hell? Emerging
Perspectives on the Strangest Fluid in the Universe,” in Water and Life: The
Unique Properties of H2O, ed. Ruth M. Lynden-Bell et al. (Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press, 2010), 3.
Two:
Water’s hydrogen-bonding capacity generates anomalous thermal properties.
(cited
in/from Fit*)
“Because
of water’s capacity to form hydrogen bonds, it has an unusually high boiling
point and melting point. At Earth’s atmospheric pressure water boils at 100
° C and melts at 0 ° C. If water molecules didn’t interact via hydrogen
bonding, then, based on the trends of the boiling and melting points of
other hydrides, water would be predicted to boil at -100 ° C (at Earth’s
atmospheric pressure). As a point of reference, hydrogen sulfide (-), which has
a molecular geometry similar to water, boils at -60 ° C.
“The high melting and boiling points of water force this
material to adopt a liquid phase within the just-right temperature range
to render water a suitable matrix for living organisms. As a rule of thumb,
the rate of chemical reactions doubles for each 10 ° C increase in temperature.
And the converse is also true. The rate of chemical reactions becomes halved
for every 10 ° C decrease in temperature.
“At
-100 ° C (the predicted boiling point of water if it didn’t form hydrogen
bonds) it is too cold for most chemical reactions to proceed. Yet at 0 °
C, (the freezing point of water at atmospheric pressure) most chemical
processes readily occur. Water’s boiling point of 100 ° C is also fortuitous.
At high temperatures, chemical reactions proceed rather quickly, which would be
desirable for living systems. But if temperatures exceed 100 ° C it leads to
chemical instability for many biomolecules. For example, at temperatures
above 100 ° C proteins readily denature, making it impossible for these
critical biomolecules to adopt stable three-dimensional structures that are
crucial for their biochemical roles. Denaturation occurs under these
temperature conditions because delicate noncovalent intermolecular interactions
become disrupted. These interactions play a role in stabilizing the
higher-order structures necessary for proteins to adopt functional
three-dimensional structures.
“The
separation of water’s boiling and melting points by 100 degrees (at atmospheric
pressure) is significant. It ensures water remains liquid over a fairly
broad temperature span, making life possible under a wide range of
environmental conditions.”
Three:
Water’s hydrogen-bonding capacity generated ‘Proton Wires’
(cited
in/from Miracle*)
“One
intriguing element of fitness for bioenergetics and proton pumping arises
directly out of water’s hydrogen-bonded network,35 which provides
so-called “proton wires” consisting of long chains of linked water molecules
for moving protons (H ions) around in the cell and across the inner
mitochondrial membrane.
“While,
as Alok Jha points out, other charged particles involved in cellular
functions have to move themselves physically from one place to another,
“protons can pass their energy along a hydrogen-bonded water wire without
moving themselves at all, thanks to the so called Grotthuss
mechanism.” A proton attaches to one end of the wire, he explains, and in a
split second, “each of the hydrogen bonds further along the length of the wire
spin around in sequence so that a proton drops off the water molecule at the
other end of the wire. The initial proton has not moved any further than
the starting end of the wire but its charge and energy have been ‘conducted’
along the wire’s length.”36
“Biophysicist
Harold Morowitz discusses the unique fitness of these water wires for
bioenergetics. “The past few years have witnessed the developing study of a
newly understood property of water [proton conductance] that appears to be
almost unique to that substance, is a key element in biological-energy
transfer, and was almost certainly of importance in the origin of life,” he
writes. “The more we learn the more impressed some of us become with nature’s
fitness in a very precise sense.” [37]
36.
Jha,
The Water Book, 115–116.
37.
Harold
Morowitz, Cosmic Joy and Local Pain (New York: Scribner, 1987), 152. He adds
that “proton conductance has become a subject of central interest in
biochemistry because of its role in photosynthesis and oxidative
phosphorylation” (153). As Morowitz explains, both these key processes use
proton conductance and hydrated ions, which are major features of water. “Once
again the fitness enters in, in the detailed way in
which the molecular properties of water are matched to the molecular mechanisms
of bio energetics” (154).
Four:
Water’s hydrogen-bonding capacity – the Goldilocks STRENGTH of the bonds
(cited
in/from Fit*)
“Based
on this brief survey, it becomes apparent that water displays an impressive
set of fortuitous properties that significantly contribute to the fitness
of the chemical environment for life. It is also evident that these just-right
properties arise, in large measure, from water’s hydrogen-bonding capacity.
But it isn’t just the existence of hydrogen bonding in water that is critical.
It is also the strength of the hydrogen bonds formed by water. In
fact, chemist Martin Chaplin’s study
of varying the strength of the hydrogen bond on water’s chemical and physical
properties has shown that the hydrogen bond
strength must be fine-tuned for water to have its life-giving properties.[
44]
[44]
Martin F. Chaplin, “Water’s Hydrogen Bond Strength,” in Lynden-Bell et al.,
Water and Life, 69– 86.
“Because
of water’s polarity and hydrogen-bonding capacities, charged materials can
readily move through aqueous systems. Water’s charge conductance
makes a whole host of electrochemical processes possible inside the cell.
Because of its hydrogen-bonding capacity, water also possesses the ability
to make use of quantum tunneling to transport protons through protein channels
embedded in cell membranes.
(cited
in/from Fit*)
“Fine-Tuning
of Water’s Chemical Properties
“Through
a counterfactual analysis, Chaplin demonstrated that if the hydrogen bond
strength were weaker:
·
It
would lower the melting and boiling points of water. This lowering would
require life to exist at lower temperatures. This would be an impediment to
life, because as temperatures lower, so do the rates of chemical reactions.
Decreasing hydrogen bond strength in water would also mean that hydrogen bond
strength would decrease in proteins and DNA as well, destabilizing the
higher-order, three-dimensional structures of these biomolecules.
·
It
would compromise water’s ability to solubilize hydrophilic and ionic materials.
As a consequence, water would not serve as a suitable matrix for life, because
it wouldn’t permit the requisite chemical diversity.
·
It
would lead to a loss of water’s hydrophobic effect. This loss would prevent
proteins and RNA from forming stable three-dimensional structures,
compromise the formation of the DNA double helix, and prevent cell membranes
from forming.
·
It
would reduce water’s ability to self-ionize. This loss of self-ionization would
alter the acid-base chemistry necessary for life.
Chaplin has
also demonstrated that if the hydrogen bond strength were stronger:
·
It
would raise the melting and boiling points of water. This temperature increase
would force liquid water into a temperature regime that would destabilize the
higher-order, three-dimensional structures of biomolecules, such as proteins
and nucleic acids.
·
It
would compromise water’s ability to solubilize hydrophilic and ionic materials.
Stronger hydrogen bonds would prevent water molecules from dissociating from
the clusters they form. This reduced dissociation would keep water molecules
from surrounding and interacting with hydrophilic solute molecules. As a
consequence, water wouldn’t have the capacity to support the chemical diversity
necessary for life.
·
It
would reduce water’s ability to self-ionize. This effect may seem
counterintuitive. Increased hydrogen bond strength would lead to enhanced
self-ionization, but because of the strength of the hydrogen bond network among
water molecules, the resulting hydrogen and hydroxide ions couldn’t efficiently
diffuse away from the site of the reaction. As a result, the
self-ionization reaction would have more
opportunity to reverse itself and regenerate the water molecule. The net effect
of the more efficient reformation reaction would result in an overall reduction
in self-ionization and an alteration of the acid-base chemistry necessary for
life. As a consequence, the hydrolysis reactions described would not be able to
occur.
Iron
This element (which
was formed out of the same ‘unexpected’ process as carbon) is surprisingly
important – at many scales (e.g. earth’s core vs hemoglobin).
(cited
in/from Miracle*)
“Iron
(Fe) is the most
abundant element in the Earth, making up about 30% of the Earth’s mass. The
core of the Earth is a vast ball of molten iron, and iron is the fourth most
common element in the Earth’s crust. Every day since life first emerged in the
primeval ocean, iron has been acting as an unseen guardian. Molten iron
in the Earth’s core is thought to act like a gigantic dynamo, generating the
Earth’s magnetic field. This in turn creates the van Allen radiation
belts that shield the Earth’s surface and all life on the Earth’s surface from
destructive, high-energy, penetrating cosmic radiation as well as preserve
the crucial ozone layer from cosmic ray destruction. Without the iron atom, there would have been no heating of
the primitive Earth, no tectonic recycling and uplift, no atmosphere, no
hydrosphere, no van Allen radiation belts, no protective magnetic field, no
hemoglobin, no oxidative metabolism, no electron transport chains (ETCs), no
advanced life forms, and possibly no life at all.
And these
manifest their uniqueness ‘in the same place’ to allow life-type processes.
(cited
in/from Privileged*)
“John
Lewis, a planetary scientist at the University of Arizona, agrees that carbon
and water have no equals. After considering possible alternatives, he
concludes:
Despite
our best efforts to step aside from terrestrial chauvinism and to seek out
other solvents and structural chemistries for life, we are forced to conclude
that water
is the best of all possible solvents, and carbon compounds
are apparently the best of all possible carriers of complex
information.”56
56
J. S. Lewis, Worlds Without End: The Exploration of Planets Known and
Unknown (Reading: Helix Books, 1998), 199. 57Henderson, The Fitness of
the Environment, 248.
They
overlap at our temperature slice – a Goldilocks overlap
(cited
in/from Miracle*)
“In
short, biochemistry is only possible because carbon compounds in the ambient
temperature range are, as described by Needham,
uniquely “metastable.”
The
upper temperature limit for life is not much above 100°C.41 This is
because of the characteristic instability of most organics as temperatures rise
beyond that point. … The lower level for controlled biochemistry has not
been ascertained. However, it is known that some organisms can function at
temperatures as low as -20°C, below which cell vitrification causes metabolism
to cease.
“This
temperature range just so happens to be almost
the same as the temperature range in which water is a liquid in ambient
conditions on Earth, surely one of the most extraordinary and
consequential bio-friendly coincidences in nature. For if these two independent ranges didn’t happen to overlap,
there would be, in all probability, no carbon-based life on Earth or indeed
anywhere in the universe.
“Although
a temperature range of –20°C to 122°C (a range of 142°C) appears from our
mundane perspective to be considerable,
as pointed out in Chapter 2 such a range is an unimaginably tiny fraction of
the total range of all temperatures in the cosmos. Temperatures in the
cosmos range from 10**32°C (10 followed by thirty-one zeros), which was the
temperature of the universe shortly after the Big Bang, to very close to
absolute zero, or –273.15°C. The temperature inside some of the hottest stars
is several thousand million degrees. Even inside our own Sun, which is not a
particularly hot star, the temperature is on the order of fifteen million
degrees, and its surface temperature is just below 6,000°C. So, out of the
enormous range of temperatures in the cosmos, there is only one tiny
temperature band, about one -10**29th of the total range, where water is a
liquid.
“Within
this tiny temperature band, the energy levels of the covalent bonds of
the organic domain can be manipulated by
living systems; the weak bonds can be used for stabilizing the 3-D forms of
complex molecules; and water, the only
compound known to possess the many other properties essential to serve as the
matrix of life, exists in the liquid state. This is little short of a miracle. If this
coincidence did not hold, water would not be fit to form the matrix of the
cell. All the myriad other elements of fitness of this unique fluid would be to
no avail. Almost certainly there would be no carbon-based life in the cosmos.
Okay—
These are all
specialist science-folk (like the earlier physicists) and they are all
more-or-less ‘impressed’ by the ‘odd’ fitness of these chemical factors for at
least ALLOWING the existence and operation of living cells.
And I could amply
quotes from other ‘more secular’ sources that would openly admit the appearance
of ‘design’ (while disagreeing with some of the above authors on the ‘source’
of such design): Conway Morris and Stuart Kaufman as good examples.
But we are back to: Why in the ‘world’ should this be expected in a ‘something
from nothing’???
Again,
do not let the ‘comfort’ of the beauty anesthetize you to the
psychological pressure of our original, stark reality: there has to ‘be’ an
OUTSIDE OTHER (truly ‘other’) which is source of our SOMETHING—and with which
we may have to experience in the (possible) post-mortem situation.
We
are ‘trapped’ in this SOMETHING that looks increasingly like it is
‘contrived’ by an Outside-Other of mind-boggling abilities.
And my point here is NOT
about trying to ascertain how this came about. I am not trying to do
‘natural theology’ – inferring the characteristics/purpose of a designer from
the these ‘anomalies’.
I am ‘merely’ trying
to develop ‘situational awareness’ – trying to assess where possible
THREATS might be.
I want to form an
impression of the ABILITY of the ‘outside other’ – from the complexity/scale/etc of the ‘Something’.
I cannot assume that any/all life-supporting
‘production’ is indicative of any BENEFICIENT INTENT on the part of the outside
other.
As a kid, I
delighted in building many clever toy structures with Lincoln Logs and
Tinkertoys, that I took a similar delight in smashing them apart/down when done…
With each layer
of this question, my estimate of the Ability of this Outside-Other grows
alarmingly more…