Origin of Life

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

"Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the probability of producing the proteins necessary to service a simple one celled organism by chance at 1 in 10 to the 40000. " Meyer - Signature in the Cell - 2009(Paperback) p.213

Hoyle was an astronomer, not a biologist; we can't blame him for getting that wrong.

 

[xianghua]

If you have a better explanation - i.e. one that also aids our understanding, makes testable predictions, is as parsimonious, and doesn't raise more questions that it answers, I'd like to hear it. 'Goddidit' fails those criteria.

the design is the only explanation for the existence of a spinning motor (even if its made from organic components and has a self replicating system):

(image from Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

actually not:

A Mousetrap Defended:Response to Critics: Behe, Michael

Yeah - he makes the same old straw man that stepwise evolution is unlikely to result in a specified result - forgetting that the mousetrap is an analogy (his own analogy), and the argument was not that a mousetrap could actually evolve, but that it was not irreducibly complex. The example showed that stepwise modification could produce a functional mousetrap at every step, falsifying the claim of irreducible complexity.

i also speak about a single protein and not about a multi-protein system.

The article you linked describing how even small flagellins can still form flagellar filaments despite large central deletions is clear evidence that even small flagellins are not irreducibly complex. Not sure what your point was...

 

[xianghua]

If abiogenesis is true, I would say that the chemical evolution that eventually resulted in life very much is a scientific question. And one that we do have the tools to explore empirically.

quite true. a cell has a motor called atp synthase that produce energy:

its basically a motor (with a self replicating system of course). since we know that a natural process cant produce a motor- the best explanation is a design rather then a natural process. we also know that such a system need at least several parts to its minimal function. so it cant evolve stepwise by evolution. we will never get such a motor from a simple self replicating matter.

(image from VCAC: Cellular Processes: Electron Transport Chain: Advanced Look: ATP Synthase)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

the design is the only explanation for the existence of a spinning motor (even if its made from organic components and has a self replicating system)...

Firstly, that is not relevant to my post that you quoted, and secondly, that claim was debunked even before Behe's claim that it was irreducibly complex.

 

[xianghua]

The article you linked describing how even small flagellins can still form flagellar filaments despite large central deletions is clear evidence that even small flagellins are not irreducibly complex. Not sure what your point was...

actually the paper shows that we need about 310 amino acids (out of 497) for the protein minimal function. that means that there is no stepwise way to evolve it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am intrigued how you would react to my
suggestion that Dr. Chaim Henry Tejman deserves the Origin of Life prize:

I have nominated Dr. Chaim Tejman for the one million dollar origin of life prize.


The Fundamental Force



Grand Unified Theory: Wave Theory and Life

I'd say it's sciency-sounding nonsense that's not going to impress anyone who knows their basic physics.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

actually the paper shows that we need about 310 amino acids (out of 497) for the protein minimal function. that means that there is no stepwise way to evolve it.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. The fact that Kuwajima found that the active terminal (N & C) regions of the flagellins were highly homologous, and the central region was heterologous and fairly resilient to deletions, strongly suggests that the N and C subunits had independent roles elsewhere before being linked via the heterologous central 'bridge'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... we know that a natural process cant produce a motor...

False. Even if we hadn't discovered natural molecular motors, and even if we didn't have plausible explanations for how they could arise, it would still be false. It's false logic.

 

[Silmarien]

its basically a motor (with a self replicating system of course). since we know that a natural process cant produce a motor- the best explanation is a design rather then a natural process. we also know that such a system need at least several parts to its minimal function. so it cant evolve stepwise by evolution. we will never get such a motor from a simple self replicating matter.

Arguing for irreducible complexity almost always leaves you in God of the Gaps territory. Which makes it an argument from ignorance. We don't know that natural processes can't produce a motor; at most, we simply haven't figured out how it came about yet.

 

[pitabread]

Since chemistry cannot explain how the information present in the DNA of even the simplest cell arose whether by necessity or chance the real question here is why a naturalistic methodology is being employed at all.

What "information"?

If your answers must be phrased according to the logic of a methodology that affords no explanatory power then maybe you have to seek a less reductionist explanation for how life arose. God did it being the simplest conclusion.

"God did it" is nowhere near the 'simplest' conclusion. It's by far the most complicated conclusion, since you:

a) have to account for the existence of God; and,
b) have to account for the mechanisms by which God would have created life.

 

[xianghua]

Arguing for irreducible complexity almost always leaves you in God of the Gaps territory. Which makes it an argument from ignorance.

im not sure. the irreducible complexity is base on claim that we can test. for instance: if you want to make a minimal cell-phone, can you do that stepwise when every step is functional by itself? if not, what make you think its possible with biological systems?

We don't know that natural processes can't produce a motor; at most, we simply haven't figured out how it came about yet.

ok. but will you agree that the best explanation for the existance of a spinning motor is design rather then a natural process?

 

[DennisTate]

I'd say it's sciency-sounding nonsense that's not going to impress anyone who knows their basic physics.

They may know their BASIC PHYSICS.....
but anybody who knows modern Theoretical Physics...... would tend to be impressed.

The man who I quote in the opening post here has an IQ of 172......
he knows the mathematics to describe this.... .but it is great that he writes this in such a way that even somebody with no more than high school level physics can get the general gist of this.

Multiverse Theory and multiple Ezekiel 37 type events.

This theory can be used in a ministry to certain groups of people who many not respond to the usual type of testimony:

Near death experiencer Dannion Brinkley saw a fulfillment of
the Mark of the Beast during his brush with death that fits well with both
Multiverse Theory...... as well as with the Book of Revelation.

He was shown a time line for this though that fits with Multiverse Theory.....
because it seems that in our time line many of the disasters have been delayed and delayed and delayed.......
which fits with the desire that G-d has that all men be saved........
and the promise that Messiah Yeshua will draw all men to Himself.

John 12:32

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Dannion Brinkley: "BOX 12: Technology & Virus

The 11th box was gone & I was into the 12th box. Its visions addressed an important event in the distant future, the decade of the 90's (remember, this was 1975), when many of the great changes would take place. In this box, I watched as a biological engineer from the Middle East found a way to alter DNA & create a biological virus that would be used in the manufacture of computer chips. This discovery allowed for huge strides in science & technology. Japan, China, & other countries of the Pacific Rim experienced boom times as a result of this discovery & became powers of incredible magnitude. Computer chips produced from this process found their way into virtually every form of technology, from cars & airplanes to vacuum cleaners & blenders.

Before the turn of the century, this man was among the richest in the world, so rich that he had a stranglehold on the world economy. Still the world welcomed him, since the computer chips he had designed somehow put the world on an even keel. Gradually, he succumbed to his own power. He began to think of himself as a deity & insisted on greater control of the world. With that extra control, he began to rule the world.

His method of rule was unique. Everyone in the world was mandated by law to have one of his computer chips inserted underneath his or her skin. This chip contained all of an individual's personal information. If a government agency wanted to know something, all it had to do was scan your chip with a special device. By doing so, it could discover everything about you, from where you worked & lived to your medical records & even what kind of illnesses you might get in the future.

There was an even more sinister side to this chip. A person's lifetime could be limited by programming this chip to dissolve & kill him with the viral substance it was made from. Lifetimes were controlled like this to avoid the cost that growing old places on the government. It was also used as a means of eliminating people with chronic illnesses that put a drain on the medical system. People who refused to have chips implanted in their bodies roamed as outcasts. They could not be employed & were denied government services." (Dannion Brinkley, Saved By The Light, chapter 5)

 

[dmmesdale]

Arguing for irreducible complexity almost always leaves you in God of the Gaps territory.

It is called inference to the best explanation, not ignorance.

We don't know that natural processes can't produce a motor;

Cannot, now you do know.

at most, we simply haven't figured out how it came about yet.

Intelligence

 

[Anguspure]

Actually, it's nothing like that. Nothing like that at all. You do yourself and your argument a disservice by such a silly analogy. That, or you've completely mis-understood the point of the experiment.

Miller-Urey and similar experiments use of "intelligent design" was to attempt to simulate early earth atmospheres and conditions. They were investigating if the conditions of earth's early atmosphere were favourable to the creation of amino-acids, which are the basis for the underlying organic chemistry of life.

The intelligence in this case was applied to replicate natural conditions and see if amino acids could form in such conditions. That is, that organic compounds could be formed spontaneously, without active intervention.

The point of the experiment (as is touted in the literature) was to show that the amino acids that are the building blocks of life could have arisen through purely natural conditions without the intervention of an Intelligence.

That it showed that under certain conditions amino-acids can form does nothing to discount creative intelligence, particularly where (subsequently) it is observed that the conditions necessary are in no way representative of any real naturally occurring conditions in the place where life is known to have arisen.

The process used in the experiment was the same as is used in many creative process' (such as farming, cooking, chemistry, engineering and (dare I say it) the creative process described in the 1st chapter of Genesis), where the intelligent agent lowers the entropy of an already existing system to a level where the natural process is able to produce a result without further intervention on the part of the creator.

There is nothing deceptive about the Miller-Urey experiment. They didn't get early atmosphere's correct, and the evidence is now is that life more probably began in water rather than in the atmosphere, but there's nothing deceptive - their original experiments, and umpteen repeats and variations of it, are available instantly with a basic Google search. They did what they set out to do - to investigate whether the complex organic compounds could be naturally produced from simpler inorganic precursors.

I agree, there is nothing deceptive in the experiment. It is in how the results are interpreted that the deception occurs.

To claim that "organic compounds" are produced, however, puts the cart before the horse. Much of the amino-acid content was found to be of a type that is not used by biological forms whether because of the type of acid or simply its handedness.

So that fact that some of the content produced may have been able to be used as a building block for certain proteins does not make them "organic compounds" (and thus imply any special class of "biological" chemical compound) anymore that a lump of clay necessarily makes house building compounds.

Rather we recognize that it is possible for these compounds to be used as building blocks for certain things, nevertheless they are in themselves chemical compounds as lifeless as the next chemical compound, and it would be a mistake to imply that by using the term "organic" that they are thereby "biological".

So while it is very clever and intelligent of Miller and Urey to demonstrate away that certain compounds can be produced it is hardly surprising, since after all we observe that they exist and are made up of certain physical elements found elsewhere on earth.
So at some point some non-biological process must have taken place to create them.

 

[Anguspure]

This isn't what the Intelligent Design movement postulates when it comes to life's origins.

You're really stretching the concept of ID here.

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Stephen Meyer
https://evolutionnews.org/2010/06/stephen_meyer_describes_his_de/

Again, the only "creative intelligence" involved was setting up the conditions of the experiment to recreate what was considered at the time to be representative of early Earth.

Condition that would be best explained by an intelligent cause as evidenced by the fact that the conditions present in the experiment had to be set up by the people conducting the experiment and the fact that the conditions that they set up were not representative of naturally occurring conditions found on early Earth, at least at the point where life is known to have originated.

If you're going to redefine "intelligent design" to mean "scientific experiment", then you've completed neutered the definition as typically used by ID proponents.

Intelligent Design postulates the involvement of a designing intelligence. It is those who oppose the movement or those who wish to use it to bolster their own argument by the use of the concept (such as Biblical Creationists) who give other definitions beyond this inference to the best explanation.

 

[pitabread]

he theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I'm familiar with what ID advocates claim. What I'm saying is that arguing that "scientific experiment" = "ID" is not what the concept of ID entails.

Condition that would be best explained by an intelligent cause as evidenced by the fact that the conditions present in the experiment had to be set up by the people conducting the experiment and the fact that the conditions that they set up were not representative of naturally occurring conditions found on early Earth, at least at the point where life is known to have originated.

Like I said, whether the conditions were representative of an early Earth is (was) up for debate and somewhat besides the point.

If you're going to argue that "setting up an experiment" = "intelligent design", then you're not quite advocating the traditional ID position which implies a much more active involvement in the creation of living things.

 

[Silmarien]

What "information"?

The concept of information is fairly significant in biology. Take a look: Biological Information (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

"God did it" is nowhere near the 'simplest' conclusion. It's by far the most complicated conclusion, since you:

a) have to account for the existence of God; and,
b) have to account for the mechanisms by which God would have created life.

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

This is the problem with reductionism. People are so intent to avoid anything that could lead back to theism that they insist upon explanations that are completely nonsensical. I'm intrigued by trends in emergentism, partly because it's Aristotelianism in disguise, and I'm not quite sure how much of the underlying metaphysics you can jettison before it stops making sense. It'll be a while before theism is scientifically fashionable again, but it's a step in an interesting direction.

 

[pitabread]

The concept of information is fairly significant in biology. Take a look: Biological Information (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Oh, I'm familiar with it. It was more of a 'challenge' question, in that creationists often have wildly different interpretations of what "information" is supposed to mean with respect to life and genetics. I prefer to have them define what they mean, rather than assume.

This is the problem with reductionism. People are so intent to avoid anything that could lead back to theism that they insist upon explanations that are completely nonsensical.

I'm not sure of what explanations you view as "completely nonsensical". Origin of life theories tend to make sense to me insofar as relying on basic biochemical reactions under certain conditions. We don't exactly know how everything would have happened precisely, but there has been a lot of progress in that area.

And I don't think it's a case of actively avoiding theism, so much as seeking explanations that are well, explanations. "God did it" offers zero explanatory power. Not unless one wishes to first demonstrate the positive existence of God and then proffer a testable explanation as to how they created life.

 

[Silmarien]

im not sure. the irreducible complexity is base on claim that we can test. for instance: if you want to make a minimal cell-phone, can you do that stepwise when every step is functional by itself? if not, what make you think its possible with biological systems?

Why would every step have to be functional in and of itself? In evolutionary biology, you have spandrels, which are byproducts of the evolution of other characteristics rather than being themselves a direct product of natural selection. I'm not familiar with the research on molecular motors, but I would not rule out the possibility of naturalistic explanations.

ok. but will you agree that the best explanation for the existance of a spinning motor is design rather then a natural process?

Not really, but I think the best answer is almost always going to be immanent teleology, so I don't really view natural processes as completely undirected.

It is called inference to the best explanation, not ignorance.

You would need to explain why all naturalistic accounts are likely to fail before being able to call it an inference to the best explanation. You can't just preemptively decide that they don't work because it would be more convenient.