HURDLE NUMBER 14. THE ERROR CATASTROPHE HURDLE.
If proteins were produced in the primordial soup, they could not reproduce themselves, and so could not evolve into biological life forms. If DNA were produced in the primordial soup, it could not reproduce itself without proteins to help it. However, this is not quite “game over”, because RNA CAN reproduce itself! If RNA had been produced in the primordial soup (which could not happen), and if the RNA were composed of nucleotides in the precisely correct sequence (which would be improbable), then it would be possible for the RNA to replicate itself, producing further chains of RNA. Unfortunately this replication comes to nothing, because it encounters The Error Catastrophe Hurdle. Basically what this means is that the RNA will replicate itself for a while, but its “progeny”, after a few generations, will die out. The reason for this is that errors in the replication process accumulate until the RNA becomes non-functional. Here are some quotes from authoritative sources that substantiate this statement:-
This quote is from the book Origins of Life (revised edition) by Freeman Dyson (Emeritus Professor at The Institute For Advanced Studies in Princeton), published by Cambridge University Press, 1999. Pages 36 to 39:-
Dyson explains that the “RNA World” theory requires RNA to replicate itself with very few errors. Modern organisms have evolved “an extremely elaborate system of - - - - error-correction within the replication system.” This apparently achieves an error rate of 1 error for every 10 – 8 nucleotides copied. In RNA replication experiments in the test tube, the error rate is 1 error for every 10 – 2 nucleotides copied. Dyson explains that this means that lengths of RNA in excess of 100 nucleotides will have too many errors, and will rapidly degenerate. This is known as “error catastrophe”. Dyson points out that RNA lengths of 100 nucleotides or less are “far too few to describe any interesting protein chemistry.”
(My comment:- What he is saying is that RNA lengths of 100 nucleotides or less cannot “code” for any protein which would have any meaningful biological function. The average protein is composed of some 200 amino acids. 100 nucleotides would “code” for a protein composed of only 30 amino acids!)
The next quote come from the book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea – by Daniel Dennett (Distinguished Professor of Arts and Sciences at Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA. Daniel Dennett is a vigorous supporter of Darwinism!), published by Penguin Books, 1996, page 158:-
Dennett explains that SHORT strings of RNA can replicate themselves without the assistance of proteins (enzymes). However, LONG strings of RNA require proteins in order to replicate themselves. These proteins have to be produced by RNA (or DNA) which “codes” for these proteins, ie:- which specifies these proteins. Now Dennett explains the problem:- “Specifying them (ie:- specifying these required proteins) requires a very long sequence (of RNA) – longer than could be replicated with high enough fidelity until these very enzymes were already present. We seem to face a paradox.” Dennett now quotes John Maynard Smith (Professor Emeritus at The University of Sussex) :- “One cannot have accurate replication without a length of RNA of, say, 2000 base pairs, and one cannot have that much RNA without accurate replication.”
The next quote is from the book Signature in The Cell – DNA and The Evidence For Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer (Ph.D. from Cambridge University in Philosophy of Science), published by HarperOne, 2009, pages 279 to 281:-
Meyer discusses the concept of Hypercycles, defined as – “a hypothetical self-reproducing system made of many enzymes and RNA molecules - - - (which) react with each other chemically to make structural improvements in the system as a whole - - - - - (Meyer tells us that):- “Critics of the model, such as evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith, physicist Freeman Dyson, and chemist Robert Shapiro - - - - (showed) that (these) hypothetical (Hyper) cycles are more likely to lose or degrade genetic information over time - - - - Hypercycles - - - lack an error-free mechanism of self-replication - - - - would succumb to various “error catastrophes” that would diminish - - - - the specified information content of the system.”
(My comment:- Small lengths of RNA might replicate themselves. However, they could never grow into larger lengths of RNA. Larger lengths of RNA could not replicate themselves accurately, and would therefore degenerate and die out. However, in order for biological life forms to come about, large lengths of RNA are absolutely necessary, because only larger lengths of RNA could “code” for the larger proteins that are required for biological life forms. Small proteins simply cannot perform any meaningful biological function. What we have then is an apparently insurmountable hurdle here. The appearance of RNA in the primordial soup (even if this could happen, which it could not) would be a “nine day wonder”, but could never come to anything. Further development would be stymied by “error catastrophe”.)
The next quote is from the book – No free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased Without Intelligence – by William Dembski (Dembski completed an undergraduate degree in psychology (1981, University of Illinois at Chicago) and master's degrees in statistics, mathematics, and philosophy (1983, University of Illinois at Chicago; 1985, University of Chicago; 1993, University of Illinois at Chicago, respectively), two PhDs, one in mathematics and one in philosophy (1988, University of Chicago; 1996, University of Illinois at Chicago, respectively)), published by Rowman and Littlefield, 2002, page 209:-
“In a classic experiment, Spiegelmann showed what happens to a molecular replication system in a test-tube - - - - Away it goes, making more copies - - - - the initial templates did not stay the same, they were not accurately copied. They got shorter - - - - until they reached the minimal size compatible with - - - - retaining self-copying properties - - - - evolution went one way: towards greater simplicity.”
The next quote is from the book Life Ascending – The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution, by Nick Lane (Biochemist, and Provost’s Venture Research Fellow in The Department of Genetics, Evolution, and Environment at University College, London), published by Profile Books, 2010, pages 53 to 54:-
Put RNA in a test tube, along with the raw materials and energy - - - it needs, and it will replicate. It won’t just replicate, but as molecular biologist Sol Spiegelman and others discovered - - - it will evolve. Over test-tube generations, RNA gets faster and faster at replicating. - - - - There is always a tendency to home in on - - - the same frenetically replicating strand of RNA, barely fifty letters (ie:- 50 nucleotides) long, (which has become known as) “Spiegelman’s Monster”. - - - - Spiegelman’s Monster does not become more complex - - - RNA - - - is never going to generate complexity in a solution. So how and why did RNA begin to code for proteins at the cost of its own replicative speed?”
(My comment:- Clearly the idea that the “RNA World” could “evolve” into complex life-forms flies in the face of the experimental evidence. Even if RNA could somehow develop in the primordial soup (which it apparently could not), it could not then develop any further.