Brian Miller vs. Jeremy England, Round 2

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 20, 2020

Intelligent Design, Origin Of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Round 1 was at Inference Review: A Sizzling Exchange On The Origin Of Life

England rightly states that the fluctuation theorems allow for the possibility that some mechanism could drive matter to both lower entropy and higher energy (higher free energy), thus potentially solving the problem of the origin of life, at least in theory. In contrast, I addressed the likelihood that, given the practical constraints, realistic natural processes on the early earth could generate a minimally complex cell. In that context, England indirectly affirmed the main points of my argument and thus reinforced the conclusion that an undirected origin of life might be possible in principle, but it is completely implausible in practice.
Brian Miller, “On the Origin of Life, Here Is My Response to Jeremy England” at Evolution News and Science Today

Origin of life is more fun when it is a genuine discussion rather than a speculation based on a chance finding.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips – origin of life What we do and don’t know about the origin of life.

Comments

.
I don’t know
To physically specify a thing from memory requires a) a memory, and b) the means to decode it. I once asked you if the memory itself was necessary, you actually answered “I don’t know”. Now when asked if the means to decode it is necessary, again you say “I don’t know” It’s a good thing you weren’t around to advise Francis Crick in 1953, 1955, or 1958. ”Silly Francis, how does that make any sense?“ With well over half a century of hindsight, you still can’t get it right. This is an another clear example of the dislocated intellect required to say “no evidence of design in biology” in light of the science and history of Pierce, Turing, Von Neumann, Crick, Brenner, Hoagland, Zamecnik, Nirenberg, and Pattee.Upright BiPed_{June 7, 2020
June
06
Jun
7
07
2020
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

Great question UB. Contraints, what constraints? DarwinLand is a wild world of multiple choice! ;-) I'm sure given enough time in the universe, Darwinist will figure it out by chance. A boulder will roll down a mountain, hit a tree, causing an acorn to fall on a scientist head, and he will go... aHa! Time and Chance! Voila! Speaking of constraints, why the need for specificity? If everything was created by blind chance? Superspecificity! "The accuracy of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase is so high that it is often paired with the word “superspecificity” when it is compared to other enzymes that are involved in metabolism." In case readers are interested, Darwinist believes this happens all by blind, unguided steps over time, Aminoacyl_tRNA_synthetase and aaRSs are involved in more than one function... "Aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (aaRSs) are enzymes that join amino acids to tRNAs. Although they are housekeeping enzymes essential for protein synthesis, aaRSs are now known to participate in a wide variety of functions, including transcription, translation, splicing, inflammation, angiogenesis and apoptosis." So which function did it first magically perform, by chance? Apoptosis? ;-) It's a magic dance in Darwin land.DATCG_{June 7, 2020
June
06
Jun
7
07
2020
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: so where are we now? Wouldn't you know we're riding on the Marrakesh Express. You were asked to provide an example of my words that are in conflict with Pattee’s measurement of the gene system I don't think you're in conflict with the work in the paper, I think you extrapolated Dr Pattee's research to a place he himself did not venture. For all I know he does agree with you which is why I asked if you had any evidence to that effect. Being unable to provide any such comments, we then clarified for the record that I’ve said nothing whatsoever in contradiction to Pattee’s measurements. Again, I think you went past his 'measurements' to a point he chose not to go, at least not in that paper. Perhaps it should have simply occurred to you that my argument is not in any contradiction with those measurements. Yes, but, again, Dr Pattee did not indicate that he agreed with your extrapolation of his work. And as far as materialist OoL research, characterizations such as being “doomed” and “condemned to failure” and the like, are all things you have said, and nothing I’ve said. Okay. My view of all OoL research (as I already clearly indicated at the top of this conversation) is that it should openly acknowledge that speculative precursors to the living cell must be capable of specifying a semantically-closed open-ended self-replicator, since that is what — via Peirce, Turing, Von Neumann, Crick, universal experience, physical law, and Pattee — it must actually do. I know that's what you've said. I'm wondering if there isn't some way to get there via unguided and natural processes. If you agree that is possible then we are not actually disagreeing. If you think this requirement is somehow at odds with Pattee’s views, or if you think his comments about any particular research program implies that this requirement is somehow unnecessary, or needn’t be met, then you are just simply mistaken. I just wonder how that requirement could be met in a precursor, unguided state. There is absolutely nothing in Pattee’s words that even begins to suggest that a state of semantic closure is not fundamental to the origin of life, regardless of prebiotic precursors. It's too bad he didn't address the issue directly isn't it? And with that fact in hand, your entire diatribe about mistaken interpretations goes up in smoke. (Note: I am speaking here about logic and reason, I recognize you will never give it up rhetorically). Perhaps so. I admit I might be completely mistaken. You will spin spin spin, but the physical realities remain the same. The fact that the science and history behind the argument given here is not logically altered by the open-ended prebiotic speculation of materialist is not something you can ever acknowledge (or alter). Perhaps so. You can’t make the symbol-matter problem go away by ignoring it, and unfortunately for you, you can’t go to a single frontline OoL researcher and find how they intend to address the problem, because they don’t. Perhaps so. But they do seem to be doing a lot or work nonetheless. That in itself should tell you something, but I know it doesn’t. It can’t be allowed to matter, and so it doesn’t. Everything is allowed. As long as the empirical evidence takes the day in the end. This now brings us back to you and your religious commitment to ignore the science and history on the origin of life — all spun up as the only rational thing to do. As I said at the top of the conversation, you will seek a non-falsifiable defense against reason, and here we are. Surprise, surprise. I hear you saying one thing and, it seems to me, I hear other highly knowledgeable people being less concerned about the same issues. I am not ignoring anything; I am arguing for letting researchers have a go and see what they can discover. I have acknowledged that the work might completely collapse at some point or that we might not ever have a definitive answer. But I still think it's worth trying. Just to be sure. Especially when it seems to be there is some disagreement as to the outcome. Ten or twenty or one hundred years from now you may have your moment of vindication telling everyone else that you had it right. I don't know where the research is going to lead. So I'm willing to pay for it to continue. Are we really in that much of a disagreement? I don't think we are. Not really. I'm just not as sure as you are about certain aspects of the development process. when the first ever aaRS constraint was synthesized from memory, how many of the other aaRS constraints had to be in place? You already asked me that and I already replied: I don't know. Does anyone know for sure?JVL_{June 7, 2020
June
06
Jun
7
07
2020
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

. JVL, when the first ever aaRS constraint was synthesized from memory, how many of the other aaRS constraints had to be in place?Upright BiPed_{June 7, 2020
June
06
Jun
7
07
2020
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

. Returning … so where are we now? You were asked to provide an example of my words that are in conflict with Pattee’s measurement of the gene system. Being unable to provide any such comments, we then clarified for the record that I’ve said nothing whatsoever in contradiction to Pattee’s measurements. Perhaps it should have simply occurred to you that my argument is not in any contradiction with those measurements. And as far as materialist OoL research is concerned, characterizations such as being “doomed” and “condemned to failure” and the like, are all things you have said, and nothing I’ve said. My view of all OoL research (as I already clearly indicated at the top of this conversation) is that it should openly acknowledge that speculative precursors to the living cell must be capable of specifying a semantically-closed open-ended self-replicator, since that is — via Peirce, Turing, Von Neumann, Crick, universal experience, physical law, and Pattee — what it must actually do. If you think this requirement is somehow at odds with Pattee’s views, or if you think his comments about any particular research program implies that this requirement is somehow unnecessary, or needn’t be met, then you are just simply mistaken. There is absolutely nothing in Pattee’s words that even begins to suggest that a state of semantic closure is not fundamental to the origin of life, regardless of prebiotic precursors. And with that fact in hand, your entire diatribe about mistaken interpretations goes up in smoke. (Note: I am speaking here about logic and reason, I recognize you will never give it up rhetorically). You will spin spin spin, but the physical realities remain the same. The fact that the science and history behind the argument given here is not logically altered by the endless prebiotic speculation of materialist is not something you can ever ever acknowledge (or alter). You can’t make the symbol-matter problem go away by ignoring it, and unfortunately for you, you can’t go to the frontline OoL researchers and find how they intend to address the problem, because they don’t. That in itself should tell you something, but I know it can’t. The disparity can’t be allowed to matter, and so it doesn’t. This now brings us back to you and your religious commitment to ignore the science and history on the origin of life — all spun up as the only rational thing to do. As I said at the top of the conversation, you will seek a non-falsifiable defense against reason, and here we are. Surprise, surprise.Upright BiPed_{June 7, 2020
June
06
Jun
7
07
2020
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: You stated very clearly that I have added something to Pattee’s measurement of the gene system, but cannot even say what it is, even after repeated requests.. I did not say 'added'. I said you had a different interpretation regarding origin of life research. I know your opinion but we are talking about your use of this particular paper to support your view. I still say that your conclusion seems to me to run contrary to that of the author. And you have not been able to provide any supporting evidence which indicates that the author agrees with your conclusion. The contradiction, as I have already said many times, is that he clearly points to areas of research which he thinks would be lucrative. He did not need to make that statement, he deliberately chose to include it which was not necessary. I hope you enjoy your time with your family. I envy your opportunity and I'm sure you will not waste it.JVL_{June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

. You stated very clearly that I have added something to Pattee’s measurement of the gene system, but cannot even say what it is, even after repeated requests.. As far as my opinion of OoL research, I have very clear. I stated upthread:
It might make someone think of the various OoL researchers who must resolve the issue of getting from dynamics to symbols in order to validate the only paradigm allowed in their field of research. Some might imagine how their work must be in some way focused on that inevitable requirement. But upon thinking about it, I’d challenge anyone who believes that rosy assumption to provide examples from any paper by Szostak, Joyce, Lincoln, Sutherland, etc where they actually address the issue in earnest. It’s a sad test, but does the issue even come up? Perhaps it is there somewhere, but I’ve never seen it (and I have read quite a lot over the years). It’s actually not there, and that’s an ugly blemish on empirical reasoning. It violates the first principles of science and its defenders collectively couldn’t care less.
If you find that comment in some way a contradiction of Pattee’s measurement, then just provide the cites. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Until then, I am going to jump in the lake and have a sunset swim with my wife and daughter. I’ll check back later.Upright BiPed_{June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: Has it occurred to you that you are left to argue with something and cannot even state what it is? Do you suspect that I already knew that? I have stated, clearly and repeatedly, what my case is. You haven't even tried to answer it which just takes a yes or no answer with supporting evidence if your answer is yes. Have you got that evidence, yes or no?JVL_{June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

. So, quite clearly, you can’t point to anything I’ve stated about Howard Pattee’s measurement of the gene system that is any different than Howard Pattee’s measurement of the gene system? Has it occurred to you that you are left to argue with something and cannot even state what it is? Do you suspect that I already knew that?Upright BiPed_{June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: And what is that thing that I said – just copy and paste it if you don’t mind. I am not disagreeing with anything Dr Pattee said in his paper. If you have any supporting evidence for your interpretation and extension of his work, considering that I think your conclusions differs from what he himself stated, then I would be pleased to consider it and change my view. Do you have evidence coming from him that supports your interpretation of his work? Yes or no? It's a simple question.JVL_{June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

. And what is that thing that I said - just copy and paste it if you don’t mind.Upright BiPed_{June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: I am happy to respond to your comments in #200, but first we must be clear. Are you now saying that you cannot actually point out (cut and paste if you like) anything I have stated about Howard Pattee’s measurement of the gene system that is any different than Howard Pattee’s measurement of the gene system? I am talking about your extension and interpretation of his work as it applies to origin of life research. You say one thing, based on the conclusion of this one paper Dr Pattee seems to say another. So I am interested to know if Dr Pattee clarified his views on that particular aspect of his theories. You can step through his paper and ask me if I agree with what it says; and I have already acknowledged that I do accept his work. It's your extension and application which seems contrary to his that I would like clarified by him. If you've got some clarification then please just present it.JVL_{June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

. JVL, I am happy to respond to your comments in #200, but first we must be clear. Are you now saying that you cannot actually point out (cut and paste if you like) anything I have stated about Howard Pattee’s measurement of the gene system that is any different than Howard Pattee’s measurement of the gene system?Upright BiPed_{June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

LoL! Who cares if he agrees with UB? What is more important is does he have anything that can refute it? Does he say that nature did it and demonstrate how? If not your objection is that of an infant.ET_{June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped: You now want to sell the notion that I have added something extra to the physical measurement of the gene system that, in particular, Howard Pattee, did not put in his measurements. As I have said many times now: I think you have come to a conclusion that Dr Pattee himself did not agree with. I know that this is correct and entirely in-line with Howard Pattee’s measurement and analysis of the system. It is precisely what he intended to convey. I know this from both reading his work over the past decade and from personal correspondence. (And I should probably note here that people who have read Pattee extensively know very well that he never resolved the symbol-matter problem, and indeed he makes very clear throughout his work that the symbol-matter problem it remains unresolved from any materialist or reductionist point of view). I have asked you several times to give examples of other things he has written which shows he agrees with your interpretation of his results regard origin of life research. Him saying it was unresolved is NOT the same thing as saying it was unresolvable. And, once again, in the paper we looked at he specifically pointed towards areas he thought research should look. Yes, I know you have spoken of all those things but, as far as I can judge, you came to a different conclusion from him regarding origin or life research. And, I ask you again, can you provide any evidence regarding his opinion, that shows him to be in agreement with your view? Yes or no? There is evidence in a letter von Neumann wrote that he did not consider origin of life research to be futile. I am not insulting anyone or putting words in their mouths. I consider Dr Pattee and von Neumann to be the best source of interpretations of their works. So yes, I am interested in their own interpretations of the implications of their research. I am not saying Dr Pattee's work would have been different if his worldview were different. I am saying I think his worldview matched his work and that, based on what I've read, he disagreed with you. But I am open to correction if you can show me something he wrote or published where he agrees with you. That's all it takes. Show me the evidence that he agrees with your interpretation and extrapolation of his work. He's the authority, he did the work, how does he view it?JVL_{June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

. JVL, swinging for the fences now? You now want to sell the notion that I have added something extra to the physical measurement of the gene system that, in particular, Howard Pattee, did not put in his measurements. But Howard Pattee’s physical measurement of the gene system does not change when viewing it from his personal worldview or from mine. That is the way physical measurement and analysis is supposed to work (which is not a flaw as you seem to suggest, but is the deliberate end goal of the practitioner). The measurement is the same, so we can clear this up quickly. Here is the passage from upthread that you must avoid at all costs:
Semantic closure is the physical state of the system that enables it to begin functioning and to persist over time. It rests on the observed reality that, in order to function, the system must successfully specify itself as well as specify how to successfully interpret its specification. In short, semantic closure requires the simultaneous coordination (relation) between a) the physical state of the sequences that specify the constituents of the process, with b) the physical state of the sequences that specify the interpretive constraints, and c) inexorable law — i.e. that whatever products result from those iterations of sequences must have the physical properties required to cause them to read the sequences, produce the products, make a copy of the descriptions, and provide it to the next generation along with a set of its interpretive constraints. If this coherence does not exist, the system cannot begin to function and cannot persist over time. The nature of issue should be evident.
I know that this is correct and entirely in-line with Howard Pattee’s measurement and analysis of the system. It is precisely what he intended to convey. I know this from both reading his work over the past decade and from personal correspondence. (And I should probably note here that people who have read Pattee extensively know very well that he never resolved the symbol-matter problem, and indeed he makes very clear throughout his work that the symbol-matter problem it remains unresolved from any materialist or reductionist point of view). So, since you claim that I have added something to Pattee’s measurement of the gene system, would you please point of what I have added to Pattee’s writings on semantic closure? I also spoke of Pattee’s discussions on rate-independence. So, in addition, would point of what I have added to Pattee’s measurement and discussion of rate independence. Additionally, I spoke of Pattee’s measurement and discussions on the fundamental requirement of a set of non-integrable constraints operating in the system. Please point out what I have added to that topic as well. Further, I spoke of Pattee’s discussions of the requirement of an epistemic cut (via Von Neumann); also the need for complimentary descriptions of the system, and so on. I’d like to hear from you what I have added to each of those topics as well. What we will find at the end of this discussion is not that I have added anything to Pattee’s words, but that you are forced to add something to mine. We will also find that you must ignore the distinction between the Pattee’s recorded measurements and analysis versus his own personal worldviews. You have already indicated that you intend to commit this fallacy by saying that you are looking for Von Neumann’s personal worldview as a means to source your defense instead of his published scientific work. How can anything be made more clear? In willfully tying Pattee’s published measurements to his worldview, you are explicitly saying that they are one in the same, i.e. that if his worldview had been different his measurement and analysis would have been different as well – perhaps even, as you seem to require, he would have added non-falsifiable statements to his work in order to champion his worldview. That is an insult to Howard Pattee that I will allow you to make all on your own. Everyone with even a lick of sense in their head can see that is exactly how you intend to defend your avoidance of semantic closure and the other critical requirements of the system. And I will be here to point it out.Upright BiPed_{June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: You start by reminding us that you’ve presented a 46 year-old experiment where molecules are taken from an extant cell, placed in a laboratory environment and fed raw materials. This is relevant to the necessary physical conditions at the origin of life … in what way exactly? It shows you might be able to get on one of the early rungs of the ladder to life with no precursors and no guidance. It is non-falsifiable to say that a natural origin of life is not possible. It is also non-falsifiable to say that someday we will discover the natural process behind the origin of life. What is it about these things that you find so difficult to comprehend? I also noted out that Dr Pattee clearly pointed out some possible directions that origin of life researchers should consider, a statement he did not have to make so I think he must have made it intentionally. I have also looked into John von Neumann's attitude towards evolution and unguided origin of life and he was NOT dismissive of the work or further efforts. You then go into this silly positioning statement about your admiration for the struggling researcher who is “taking chances” in order to expand our horizons of knowledge. Good grief. If (upon being confronted with irrefutable science and history; i.e. a logically coherent model that you then acknowledge and agree with) you decide to stick your head in the sand anyway, at least you can do so with the flags of exploration waving in the background, eh JVL? I acknowledged the model and pointed out that your interpretation of the model seems to be at odds with the modeller who would, I assume, understand it and its implications pretty well. I do not apologise for wanting to support basic research. You were confronted upthread with the documented facts and scientific history behind our universal experience of autonomous open-ended self-replication. It caused you to actually shut up for several days. But before you went silent, you had this to say: ” I think most of us tend to cling to ideas they’ve held for a long time; it’s hard to admit you’ve got it wrong after years and years and some ideas are comforting to us.” Yes, I think that applies to most of us, yourself included. But that's why I wanted to look into some of the work that you found foundational to your outlook. I wanted to 'see where you were coming from'. Since that time, we have literally watched you choose (as an act of will) to ignore the science right in front of you, ending with your comments at #195. But it doesn’t really stop there, does it JVL? You will be back here again tomorrow saying that there is “no evidence of design in biology”. It is the nature of denial when the subject is important to us. It often requires regular maintenance. I looked at one paper and said the author has pretty clearly come to a different conclusion regarding his work than you did. Yes, I still think ID has not proven its case (and I share that view with a lot of other people so it's not just be being pig-headed) but that comment was made in a different thread. You interpret some research in a way I think is contrary to that of the author's own opinion. I have asked if you can show me something else he wrote that upholds your interpretation and you haven't done so; I can't tell if that's by choice or because it doesn't exist. I have done a little bit of work trying to track down John von Neumans's opinion regarding origin of life and evolution and what I've found so far leads me to believe he was also not disparaging of people trying to figure that stuff out. You keep saying I'm denying evidence. I'm wondering if your interpretation of some non-biological research matches that of the authors of that research. I'm happy to consider any evidence you have regarding those authors' opinions on your interpretation.JVL_{June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

. JVL, your entire comment in #195 displays a stunning level of dissembling. You start by reminding us that you’ve presented a 46 year-old experiment where molecules are taken from an extant cell, placed in a laboratory environment and fed raw materials. This is relevant to the necessary physical conditions at the origin of life … in what way exactly? You then try once more to weave something significant out of the rather ordinary fact that competent researchers don’t typically add non-falsifiable comments to their research papers, yet you never answer the question of “why they would”. It is non-falsifiable to say that a natural origin of life is not possible. It is also non-falsifiable to say that someday we will discover the natural process behind the origin of life. What is it about these things that you find so difficult to comprehend? You then go into this silly positioning statement about your admiration for the struggling researcher who is “taking chances” in order to expand our horizons of knowledge. Good grief. If (upon being confronted with irrefutable science and history; i.e. a logically coherent model that you then acknowledge and agree with) you decide to stick your head in the sand anyway, at least you can do so with the flags of exploration waving in the background, eh JVL?
I guess we’ll just have to disagree.
You were confronted upthread with the documented facts and scientific history behind our universal experience of autonomous open-ended self-replication. It caused you to actually shut up for several days. But before you went silent, you had this to say: ” I think most of us tend to cling to ideas they’ve held for a long time; it’s hard to admit you’ve got it wrong after years and years and some ideas are comforting to us.” Since that time, we have literally watched you choose (as an act of will) to ignore the science right in front of you, ending with your comments at #195. But it doesn’t really stop there, does it JVL? You will be back here again tomorrow saying that there is “no evidence of design in biology”. It is the nature of denial when the subject is important to us. It often requires regular maintenance.Upright BiPed_{June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

JVL, no. While in principle all reactions are an equilibrium process that potentially run both ways, some are so energetically unfavourable that effectively, sans catalysts and pushing circumstances . . . Le Chatelier's principle . . . generally, they would not go in certain ways. The reactions of life are enzyme catalysed and ATP enabled for a reason. Absent such scaffolding to control the Chemistry -- often using a coded control tape also -- the reaction would not go that way spontaneously. The spontaneous direction would be to disorder and dis-INTEGRAT-ion. There is a pivotal misconception of thermodynamics on your part, here. KFkairosfocus_{June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: with the questions you ask, it appears you want me to simply ignore the physical conditions of the system; ignore all the science and history that informs our universally-coherent (and irrefutable) model of autonomous open-ended self-replication. I'm not asking you or ET or EugeneS or Asauber or Barry to do anything. I've seen and presented some evidence that synthesis of an RNA chain could possibly occur with no precursor to copy. This seems like an interesting if not promising result to work with, to see what follows from it and also to see if you can back things up another step. Maybe all this research will topple to the ground and come to nothing. But I don'think Dr Pattee was saying that in the paper discussed earlier in this thread. I was listening to an interview with Dr Francis Collins, director of the NIH, founder of the BioLogos Institute and recent winner of the Templeton prize. He doesn't say that origin of life research is pointless and doomed to failure. I know the general feeling on this site is that it is pointless but clearly some well known people along with hundreds of working researchers (and funding agencies) think otherwise. I've always admired explorers, folks who try to find out things we don't know, people who expand our horizons by taking risks and chances. Maybe all those researchers will be retooling their research agendas in five or ten years but I think it's worth letting them continue to work the problems. On that I guess we'll just have to disagree.JVL_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

. JVL, with the questions you ask, it appears you want me to simply ignore the physical conditions of the system; ignore all the science and history that informs our universally-coherent (and irrefutable) model of autonomous open-ended self-replication. I am not certain why you would want me to do that, other than the obvious reason that if my selective ignorance were to match yours, it would serve your ideological purposes by removing the documented empirical facts and logical reasoning that illustrate its flaws.Upright BiPed_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

JVL
Eventually but could it not have started with a basic self-replicator
No. The starting point of life requires a fully functional semantically closed translation system. It is NOT a single process but an orchestrated suite of processes. No translation means no life. No semantic closure means no life. RNA must specify not only a protein but also an interpreter of this specification. Another crucial requirement is error correction. As the length of DNA grows, the copying error rate increases catastrophically. However, the length of the code for the simplest error corrector is greater than the maximum DNA length that can be copied without errors (the so called Eigen paradox).
IF one particular combination of RNA ALSO happened to synthesise a protein owning to chemical affinities
In other words, if a symbolic specification just happened to arise together with a symbolic specification of its interpreter? The naturalistic OOL does not stand up to scrutiny.EugeneS_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

RNA chains can be formed without a biological catalyst. So what? Also, just because a particular sequence forms a catalyst doesn't mean it is a wild card that can catalyze any and all required reactions.ET_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

There aren't any molecular "self-replicators". You need, at a minimum, one catalyst and one template. Unless you are in the matrix and your name is Agent Smith.ET_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

JVL:
Enzymes encourage chemical reactions but the reaction would happen anyway, just more slowly. So . . . you probably don’t even need the enzyme.
Timing is key.
Alright, that particular example probably depends on the enzyme but, again, an enzyme just accelerates a chemical reaction.
Timing is key, though.
So, is it possible that an RNA chain could form even without an enzyme? It seems to be able to with the enzyme so why not without?
Yes, they can. However the odds of the right RNAs forming spontaneously has never been calculated. We know there are 5 nucleotide RNAs that can catalyze a reaction. But so what if all that comes of it is just more RNAs that do nothing? Magic is somehow going to make more that catalyze reactions? And the what? Lincoln and Joyce had a sustained replicating RNA scenario- two designed RNAs of 35 nucleotides each. One was a template and one could catalyze a reaction joining two smaller (engineered) RNAs. Nothing came of it beyond a faster reaction time was conceived.ET_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

"It’s like filling a maze with water. Eventually an exit is found with no foresight or plan or control." JVL, If there is a 'maze', with an 'exit' you are assuming design. Analogy fail. And for your own good, JVL, analogies don't demonstrate anything. Andrewasauber_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

JVL:
but do you think it’s a possibility?
See this article in which Jerry Coyne states:
The error is taking what is possible and making people think that this is what’s common or probable.
Sure, from the point of pure possibility, it is possible to toss heads 500 times in a row. It is possible that all of the air molecules in the room will congregate in one corner and you will suffocate. But when you come to the point where you cling to bare possibility to prop up your materialist religious commitments, you have crossed over into the "snake handler" stages of fideism.Barry Arrington_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

EugeneS: All you have to do now is demonstrate that this is possible without forethought and planning. You haven’t even started. The only thing you have really produced is the flawed analogy between living organisms and water. That is not even wrong. Water obeys the laws of nature (gravity, surface tension, which leads to the capillary effect; all of this can be described as a tendency towards states with min potential energy) and it is nowhere near the complex functionality of life required at its start, i.e. before biological evolution even begins. This is not a serious discussion. I have presented a possible origin of the first basic self-replicator. Assuming 'mistakes' could be made and passed on does that not introduce the idea of descent with modification? Life involves non-homogeneous autonomous structures with complex function, metabolism, computation, control, response to stimuli and, finally, replication, which includes read/write from/to symbolic memory and semantically closed self-assembly by instructions from memory. Eventually but could it not have started with a basic self-replicator which could pass on its 'genome' and possibly some variations?JVL_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: A de facto acknowledgement of the empirical case made for ID. So, let me get this straight . . . do you think it's possible the first basic replicator arose through purely chemical processes? Okay, you answered that. I already have. It’s a purely dynamic reaction. The existence of dynamic reactions are not under debate. The system of symbols, constraints and semantic closure is the target you must avoid. Getting from dynamics to that system is the issue at hand. It is the issue you are avoiding in each and every comment you make. Okay, so we ;have a basic self-replicator, possibly using some form of RNA. All done through basic chemical reactions. So we get inheritance and variation assuming 'mistakes' could be made in the reproduction. IF one particular combination of RNA ALSO happened to synthesise a protein owning to chemical affinities then you could get the genetic code. It's just an idea but do you think it's a possibility?JVL_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

JVL
I was presenting a passible starting point.
You haven't presented anything.
The organisms that arose were not a goal.
All you have to do now is demonstrate that this is possible without forethought and planning. You haven't even started. The only thing you have really produced is the flawed analogy between living organisms and water. That is not even wrong. Water obeys the laws of nature (gravity, surface tension, which leads to the capillary effect; all of this can be described as a tendency towards states with min potential energy) and it is nowhere near the complex functionality of life required at its start, i.e. before biological evolution even begins. This is not a serious discussion. Life involves non-homogeneous autonomous structures with complex function, metabolism, computation, control, response to stimuli and, finally, replication, which includes read/write from/to symbolic memory and semantically closed self-assembly by instructions from memory. EG
And why does it have to be a protein based enzyme? An enzyme is nothing but a catalyst, and the world is full of very simple catalysts.
It should then be very easy for you to win this competition.EugeneS_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply