Agreed, as I said this molocule is probably not the precursor to life on earth -- but it is a proof of possibility. Self-replicating molecules can arise through pure chemical processes. Now you are in the position of having to argue that only uninteresting self-replicating molecules can arise, or that they can only arise under conditions not like earth. That is a fairly weak position to be in.RFHendrix said:On a side note however I should say that I don't think that chloroform and the lack of water in his experiment is a realistic simulation of any supposed abiogenesis hypothesis. The part of his experiment that is relevant to the subject of information that we are discussing is the fact that the molecule he created self replicates.
This particular molecule replicates perfectly under normal conditions over a short period of observation. This fact is only interesting if one wants to make the claim that all non-DNA self-replicating molecules must always reproduce perfectly under all conditions. There is no evidence for such a claim.But, it replicates perfectly.
That is not the question (nor is it a valid counter-example as the 'machine' in question reproduces itself.) It is unprovable that "intelligent design was not involved", what can be proved is that it is unnecessary. I will happily concede that you can never disprove supernatural involvement in anything -- perhaps the car gods help my car to start in the morning. Proving that the supernatural must have been involved is a much tougher proposition, because you have to show that there must have been no naturalistic means (improbable or not) that could have lead to RNA's precursor. It is a bit like (dis)proving an alibi; the cops don't have to show exactly how you got across town in time to commit the crime, all they have to show that it was possible for you to.I can design a machine that reproduces a product that I designed millions of times. That of course does not prove that intelligent design was not involved because both the original design and the machine that reproduced it were necessarily designed.
This doesn't make sense to me. So you are saying that even if he had come up with a molecule with the capability to evolve, it doesn't prove that molecules could evolve? What possible test are you looking for, then? If we show how RNA could come about step-by-step from chemical processes that likely existed on the pre-biotic earth would that be enough -- or would the fact that as intelligent beings we did the experiment be enough to disprove it?In his experiment he forced the assembly of a molecule that replicates itself -- perfectly. Even if the copies were not perfect his experiment still would not touch the subject of information even if the best survived and were selected for an assumed future breeding.
The experiment doesn't touch the "subject of information" because the question of whether the precursor to RNA arose from chemical processes on earth has precious little to do with information. (Actually the question is properly framed as 'which chemical processes lead to the precursor to RNA;' there is not much doubt about the former.)
As humans we overgeneralize; it is how we are wired and as an approximation it works very well. It can lead to magical thinking and irrational beliefs, however. While one can make a (very weak) analogy to a strand of RNA as a computer program, the differences between the two are vast. If you actually look into how codons are 'interpreted' (google Aminoacyl-tRNA) you will find a mechanism that is completely unlike a generalized computing engine. Codons are not abstract objects like bits are, they are three dimensional real objects whose 'interpretation' is strongly related to their structure. I can make an arbitrary assignment that '101111' = 'Hamlet', you cannot make the arbitrary assignment that CAG=<kevlar fibre>; the physics do not work. That is a crucial distinction between the types of 'information' in a computer program and that in RNA.
hw
Upvote
0