Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Missing link in origin of life confirms Mike Behe’s thesis?

Categories
Intelligent Design
News
Origin Of Life
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Irreducible complexity

From Yahoo News:

The new research — which involves two studies, one led by Charles Carter and one led by Richard Wolfenden, both of the University of North Carolina — suggests a way for RNA to control the production of proteins by working with simple amino acids that does not require the more complex enzymes that exist today.

This link would bridge this gap in knowledge between the primordial chemical soup and the complex molecules needed to build life. Current theories say life on Earth started in an “RNA world,” in which the RNA molecule guided the formation of life, only later taking a backseat to DNA, which could more efficiently achieve the same end result. Like DNA, RNA is a helix-shaped molecule that can store or pass on information. (DNA is a double-stranded helix, whereas RNA is single-stranded.) Many scientists think the first RNA molecules existed in a primordial chemical soup — probably pools of water on the surface of Earth billions of years ago. More.

So this would support RNA World, the five-star hotel of origin-of-life theories

Physicist Rob Sheldon writes to note the remark,

We also looked at the structure of the autocatalytic sets our algorithm identified. Contrary to Kauffman’s original argument that autocatalytic sets emerge as a giant connected components, it turns out that autocatalytic sets can often be decomposed into smaller subsets, which themselves are autocatalytic. In fact, there often exists an entire hierarchy of smaller and smaller autocatalytic subsets. The smallest autocatalytic sets, which cannot be decomposed any further, are called irreducible autocatalytic sets.

In recent groundbreaking work, a group of researchers including Kauffman and Hungarian theoretical evolutionary biologist Eors Szathmary convincingly showed that autocatalytic sets composed of multiple small, irreducible subsets can, in fact, evolve. The main idea is that these autocatalytic subsets can exist in different combinations within a compartment (a protocell), thus giving rise to different types of protocells, and, consequently, to competition and selection. This, combined with our own results that one can indeed expect many such irreducible autocatalytic subsets to exist within a reaction network, suggests that autocatalytic sets are likely to arise from sufficiently complex chemical reaction networks and go on to evolve into larger and more complex systems.

Notice that “evolving” operates at the level of moving IC chess pieces.

Yes, we did notice the design assumptions and language. But naw, it all just sort of happened. 😉

Abstract The hydrophobicities of the 20 common amino acids are reflected in their tendencies to appear in interior positions in globular proteins and in deeply buried positions of membrane proteins. To determine whether these relationships might also have been valid in the warm surroundings where life may have originated, we examined the effect of temperature on the hydrophobicities of the amino acids as measured by the equilibrium constants for transfer of their side-chains from neutral solution to cyclohexane (Kw>c). The hydrophobicities of most amino acids were found to increase with increasing temperature. Because that effect is more pronounced for the more polar amino acids, the numerical range of Kw>c values decreases with increasing temperature. There are also modest changes in the ordering of the more polar amino acids. However, those changes are such that they would have tended to minimize the otherwise disruptive effects of a changing thermal environment on the evolution of protein structure. Earlier, the genetic code was found to be organized in such a way that—with a single exception (threonine)—the side-chain dichotomy polar/nonpolar matches the nucleic acid base dichotomy purine/pyrimidine at the second position of each coding triplet at 25 ̊C. That dichotomy is preserved at 100 ̊C. The accessible surface areas of amino acid side-chains in folded proteins are moderately correlated with hydrophobicity, but when free energies of vapor-to-cyclohexane transfer (corresponding to size) are taken into consideration, a closer relationship becomes apparent (paywall) .– Richard Wolfenden, Charles A. Lewis Jr., Yang Yuan, and Charles W. Carter Jr. Temperature dependence of amino acid hydrophobicities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2015; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1507565112

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Actually Mungy, that is pretty much word-for-word what he has said to me at least a few times. I've only read the science daily blurb, but that was enough to know that the research directly contradicts one of upright's main selling points.Curly Howard
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT
Curly Howard:
Every time I talk to upright, his argument is that there is no “physicochemical” link between nucleic acid sequence and amino acid sequence.
Actually, that's not what he says. So I'd not be surprised at all if he doesn't respond to you. He probably has much better things to do. What is it from the paper that you find so relevant, or are you just reading the reporting?Mung
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
It's almost amazing how the Yahoo article is full of design language:
Also, proteins have to be shaped a certain way in order to function properly. That means RNA has to be able to guide their formation — it has to "code" for them, like a computer running a program to do a task.
And so here we go again, quickly descending into the usual abject and shameless silliness for which they are famous the world over: coding without a coder, task performing without goal and a task performer and, of course, programming without a programmer.Mapou
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
Cmon Mungy, are you serious? You've been here a lot longer than I have. Every time I talk to upright, his argument is that there is no "physicochemical" link between nucleic acid sequence and amino acid sequence. He of course dresses it up with his usual psychobabble wordiness, but either way these findings seem to fly in the face of his semiotics argument. Which is why I would like to hear what he has to say.Curly Howard
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
REC:
Mapou, If the “may” wasn’t there, you’d accuse the writer of over-hyping the results. If it is there, then the results must be weak.
No. I accuse the writer and the researchers of engaging in materialist/atheist propaganda knowing well that they have nothing truly scientific to talk about.
I don’t think there is ANY science in this area you’d like.
So true. Calling this crap 'science' is a travesty of some big principle somewhere, IMO.Mapou
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
The map is not the territory. Still waiting to see something relevant to Upright BiPed's argument.Mung
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
I think I figured out the original post. News quotes one Yahoo article reviewing work that is fully devastating to Kairosfocus's argument that the codon-amino acid relationship is physically arbitrary. Semiotic? Maybe no. Sheldon's response must then be the line "Notice that “evolving” operates at the level of moving IC chess pieces"? In response to the paragraphs from an article "News" does not provide the citation of, which I found via google here: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/43082/title/The-Living-Set/ The article makes it clear they are talking about the emergence and evolution of IC sets. So, no to Mung on reprinting that little quip. And no to the original post saluting Behe on this study. Also to box, thanks for establishing why this new study is so significant, and a direct answer to previous ID criticisms. As the author of the article I linked put it: "In light of all these results, it seems that the main criticisms against the plausibility and evolvability of autocatalytic sets have now been largely resolved." So, Meyer now has some better work to consider....REC
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
"Szathmary convincingly showed that autocatalytic sets composed of multiple small, irreducible subsets can, in fact, evolve." Evolve? Certainly not NS & RM evolve. What kind of evolve are we talking about? Guided or unguided? Lucky evolve? Magic evolve? This is clear cut Design evolve right? Right?ppolish
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
Instead, it is inherently implausible to think that the specificity necessary to coordinate the movements and arrangements of the billions or trillions of cells present in adult animal forms could be established by the interactions of one or two simple chemicals, even if they formed autocatalytic cycles. Kauffman himself seems tacitly to acknowledge the difficulty of generating biological specificity from the reactions of chemicals alone. He notes, in critique of his own model, that patterns of molecular diffusion produced by chemical autocatalysis would depend crucially upon “the initial conditions.”16 In other words, getting a biologically relevant information-rich arrangement of morphogenic proteins would require starting with a very specific (presumably information-rich) arrangement of autocatalyzing molecules. Kauffman encounters this same problem in attempting to explain the origin of the first life as the result of autocatalytic reactions starting from a prebiotic soup. In The Origins of Order, he acknowledges that generating an autocatalytic, or self-reproducing, set of molecules—a crucial step in his origin-of-life scenario—would require “high molecular specificity”17 in the initial set of peptides or RNA molecules. In other words, it would require specificity of arrangement and structure, that is to say, functional information. (...) Getting a law-governed system to generate repetitive patterns of flashing lights, even with a certain amount of variation, is interesting, but not biologically relevant. A system of lights flashing “Vote for Jones,” on the other hand, would model a biologically relevant outcome, at least, if such a functional sequence of letters arose without intelligent agents programming the system with equivalent amounts of functionally specified information. [Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin's Doubt, Ch.15]
Box
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
Notice that “evolving” operates at the level of moving IC chess pieces.Mung
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
Curly Howard:
Need upright biped’s take on this and needed it five days ago when I first asked for it!
What does this have to do with Upright BiPed?Mung
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
Back to the original article, are those quotes following Rob Sheldon's name his, or from some other unnamed source? What is he working on?REC
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
Mapou, If the "may" wasn't there, you'd accuse the writer of over-hyping the results. If it is there, then the results must be weak. I don't think there is ANY science in this area you'd like.REC
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
Re: Origin-of-Life Story May Have Found Its Missing Link The Mapou rule of science news:
You know a science story is crap if the title has the word 'may' in it.
There are exceptions, of course. You can replace the word 'may' with other substitutes such as 'would' or 'could' if you wish. Now that I think of it, the same rule holds true for peer-reviewed articles, especially articles about evolution and parallel universes.Mapou
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
@7 "To this let me add: A system is irreducibly complex in Behe's sense if all its parts are indispensable to preserving the system's basic function" William A. Dembski, 2.17.03 http://designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm I'll add: there is no definition of IC meaningful to ID that is supported by the quotes in my post.REC
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
REC: the failure of a system with removal of a part is NOT necessarily an indicator of design. Behe didn't say it was.Mung
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
"a group of researchers ... convincingly showed that autocatalytic sets composed of multiple small, irreducible subsets can, in fact, evolve." "autocatalytic sets are likely to arise from sufficiently complex chemical reaction networks and go on to evolve into larger and more complex systems." I think the most devastating argument against Behe's concept of irreducible complexity is that what he calls "IC" systems could evolve, and that the failure of a system with removal of a part is NOT necessarily an indicator of design. You seem to quoting Sheldon on exactly that, although I'm not really sure how his comment relates to the paper. KF should also read the paper (or at least the Yahoo summary). The notion that tRNAs can discriminate between chemicals and while matching to RNA in a NON_ARBITRARY manner dependent on structure destroys that FSCIO semiotic/arbitrary code of his that has been repeated ad nauseum in "comments closed" posts. So----double own goal?REC
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
Andreas Wagner (Arrival of the Fittest) imagines 1st Life sparking up all over the globe at about the same time. Different kinds of 1st Life. But then one version/clan/tribe of 1st Life defeats all other versions, leaving us a single universal common ancestor. I think others believe 1st Life sparked in only one place at one time, and spread. How long did it take for a unique 2nd kind of life to emerge? 3rd "species" and 4th? Was there an "inflationary" era when new kinds of life were popping up quickly?ppolish
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
Need upright biped's take on this and needed it five days ago when I first asked for it!Curly Howard
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
harry: But the environments provided by automated factories do not come about mindlessly and accidentally. A complete theory of abiogenesis would entail a plausible primordial environment. Many such experiments have already been done, though there is as yet no complete theory. harry: Nor does an environment that allows for the production of self-replicating, digital-information-based nanotechnology the functional complexity of which is light years beyond our own — nanotechnology that makes laptop PC technology seem crude in comparison. RNA World, along with this result, largely bridges that gap. RNA can act as both memory and replicator, and can also manipulate amino acids.Zachriel
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
What are the odds of the environment the laboratories provide, in which all this is demonstrated, coming about mindlessly and accidentally? A completely automated laptop PC factory would demonstrate the mindless production of laptop PCs. But the environments provided by automated factories do not come about mindlessly and accidentally. Nor does an environment that allows for the production of self-replicating, digital-information-based nanotechnology the functional complexity of which is light years beyond our own -- nanotechnology that makes laptop PC technology seem crude in comparison. As unlikely as it would be for an automated laptop PC factory to come about accidentally, it is far, far more unlikely than an environment that could produce much more sophisticated technology would come about mindlessly and accidentally. And all that had to happen just to get that first single-celled, metabolizing, self-replicating life form. The notion that that extremely unlikely environment would then not only be sustained but also mindlessly and accidentally adjust itself such that ever-increasing functionality would develop and be maintained in the descendants of that first life form, is beyond absurdity.harry
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
From Chemicals to Codes at the Origin of Life: A Bridge Too Far? - June 5, 2015 Excerpt: This paragraph undercuts everything that came before. It deflates all the hype in the report. They just admitted they don't know how to connect the protein code to the genetic code. They tossed out some speculations by other researchers. They tried to "revive a possibility" that something lucky happened. Then they attributed "anticipation" to blind molecules in a soup. Then there is that pregnant phrase, "according to a message." That, the only use of the word message in the paper, is exactly the issue. A message, written in DNA, is transcribed into messenger RNA. The mRNA carries that message to the aaRS family of enzymes, which faithfully translate the message into the protein code. The acylated transfer-RNAs carry both translations to the ribosome, which reads the mRNA and simultaneously assembles the amino acids into proteins that convert message into function by folding into molecular machines. And that's not all: those machines interact in systems, regulated by layer upon layer of specifications, messages, and functions. Throughout the cell, error-correction systems work to keep the message from getting lost or corrupted. "According to a message." With those four words, they give away the store to intelligent design. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/from_chemicals096611.htmlbornagain77
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply