New origin of life book argues, even the simplest life forms are extraordinarily complex

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 4, 2020

Intelligent Design, Origin Of Life}

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

The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check by chemist Change Laura Tan and physicist Rob Stadler, hit the wall over the desk recently and author Rob Stadler writes to offer:

Could natural processes and millions of years have produced the first life?
We know enough to know better.
The Stairway to Life: An Origin-of-Life Reality Check, by Change Tan and Rob Stadler, takes a new approach to addressing the origin of life.
By studying the simplest forms of life and laboratory efforts to synthesize life, we know that the simplest living organisms are extraordinarily complex. Al life contains highly interdependent subsystems and hierarchical layers of information that flows between the subsystems. Tan and Stadler organize this knowledge into a set of minimal requirements for life. The minimal requirements are organized via the convenient metaphor of a stairway: The Stairway to Life.
We also know enough about physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics to understand the creative capacity of natural processes. Tan and Stadler then review the capacity of natural processes to meet the requirements and ascend the Stairway, concluding that none of the required steps can be accomplished by natural processes.
The book then explores why some intelligent people believe that life started naturally. Many believe that science supports a natural origin of life, but this reasoning is shown to be circular because they have constrained the scientific process to only consider natural phenomena. When science is constrained in this manner, it no longer seeks truth; it only seeks the best naturalistic explanation. The Stairway to Life opens inquiry to follow the evidence wherever it leads – notably beyond natural explanations.

See also: What we know and don’t know about the origin of life

Comments

seversky:
“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.” Attributed to Joseph Goebbels among others.
Evolutionism is that lie. Materialism is also that lie,
Tell people from childhood that there is a god and they will come to believe it unquestioningly.
Total unsupportable nonsense. However if you show them the evidence and explain that no one can explain it in naturalistic terms, they may come to believe it unquestionably. But I hope not as questions are the way to understanding.
Ask any scientist and they will tell you that there is still a huge amount to learn about this Universe.
Then they should shut up about pushing an atheistic agenda,
But as David Hume wrote, “A Wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.”
We already know that evos are not wise.
We have more evidence for the naturalistic and materialistic nature of life than for any other explanation.
Liar. There isn't any such evidence. If there was then it would be printed in the papers. People would have won Nobel Prizes for discovering it. Yet we have a total absence of it in any papers and Nobel laureates. Clearly seversky is deluded and proud to be a liarET_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

seversky:
If you would like define what you mean by “natural” and how it is somehow constraining science, that would be a start.
Produced by nature. And it is constraining because nature id not produce living organisms. So saying it did is a lie. Lies hurt science.
As I see it, everything that can be observed or inferred to exist is part of the natural order.
As I see it, natural processes cannot produce nature as natural processes only exist in nature. And that means your "natural order" is question-begging nonsense.ET_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

Whales have very big brains and they can not decipher what is happening with this SARS-CoV-2 thing. What are the correct form and size needed to understand 'nature'? It looks like H. sapiens has approached them.Truthfreedom_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

Look at all the information contained in a single, microscopic virus. It's potentially there, waiting for the cellular machinery to become actual.Truthfreedom_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

@9 Seversky
That’s right. Ask any scientist and they will tell you that there is still a huge amount to learn about this Universe.
We do not need to ask any scientist, it is a matter of common sense that human knowledge has limits.Truthfreedom_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

@9 Seversky
Tell people from childhood that there is a god and they will come to believe it unquestioningly.
That is kinda strange because literally hundreds of thousands of people who were raised to believe in God abandoned the faith after having questioned it. Some UD members are living examples. And you, Seversky, you know that there is not a God. It is not a belief, it is an absolutely, completely, totally unquestionable, warranted knowledge.Truthfreedom_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Martin_r @ 7
Repetition is the mother of all learning.
“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.” Attributed to Joseph Goebbels among others. Tell people from childhood that there is a god and they will come to believe it unquestioningly.
so let me repeat the following FACT: Even if the best scientists in the World would have all the cell-components pre-made and securely stored in their lab’s freezers, they would not know where to start in order to assemble the simplest cell.
That's right. Ask any scientist and they will tell you that there is still a huge amount to learn about this Universe. Why would you expect otherwise? Does the fact that biologists are unable to build a viable cell from scratch today mean that they never will? We don't know that either.
So DESPERATE the situation is after 150 years of the origin-of-life research…
The Universe is currently estimated to be around 13.8bn years old and you expect us to have cracked it in just 150 years? Give us a break! If you have a better way then let's hear it.
To believe, that life arose by some chemical accident, requires lots of faith…
Yes, it does. But as David Hume wrote, "A Wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." We have more evidence for the naturalistic and materialistic nature of life than for any other explanation.
But today, we see lots of smart educated atheists believing in miracles…
No, you don't.
What is wrong with all these people ?
Nothing. What do you think is wrong with atheism?Seversky_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

Many believe that science supports a natural origin of life, but this reasoning is shown to be circular because they have constrained the scientific process to only consider natural phenomena. When science is constrained in this manner, it no longer seeks truth; it only seeks the best naturalistic explanation.
If you would like define what you mean by "natural" and how it is somehow constraining science, that would be a start. As I see it, everything that can be observed or inferred to exist is part of the natural order. There is nothing beyond it. The proper antonym to "natural" is something like "artificial".Seversky_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

Repetitio mater studiorum est. Repetition is the mother of all learning. so let me repeat the following FACT: Even if the best scientists in the World would have all the cell-components pre-made and securely stored in their lab's freezers, they would not know where to start in order to assemble the simplest cell. So DESPERATE the situation is after 150 years of the origin-of-life research... So, unlike the theory of evolution, what is just wrote IS A FACT ! To believe, that life arose by some chemical accident, requires lots of faith... it is like to believe in miracles.... But today, we see lots of smart educated atheists believing in miracles... What is wrong with all these people ?martin_r_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

Even the preceding computer model of the simplest life was found to be far too simplistic:
twitter discussion criticizing the cell model.. - 2012 Umm – claims of first full computer simulation of an organism seem, well, way way overhyped… one of the worst NY Times science articles I have seen in a while… I do not think they made a complete model … Another commenter, Steffen Christensen, voiced his agreement: Aye: a model is NOT a complete simulation…There are what, 1000s of molecule types in a typical cell, and their model tracks less than 30?!? They might’ve done a better job of it. You know, modeled spatial interactions, 1000s of moieties, etc… As it is, I just feel… disappointed. http://phylogenomics.blogspot.jp/2012/07/for-those-interested-storification-of.html
Further notes:
"We have no idea how to put this structure (a simple cell) together.,, So, not only do we not know how to make the basic components, we do not know how to build the structure even if we were given the basic components. So the gedanken (thought) experiment is this. Even if I gave you all the components. Even if I gave you all the amino acids. All the protein structures from those amino acids that you wanted. All the lipids in the purity that you wanted. The DNA. The RNA. Even in the sequence you wanted. I've even given you the code. And all the nucleic acids. So now I say, "Can you now assemble a cell, not in a prebiotic cesspool but in your nice laboratory?". And the answer is a resounding NO! And if anybody claims otherwise they do not know this area (of research).” - James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained - 4:20 minute mark (The more we know, the worse the problem gets for materialists) https://youtu.be/r4sP1E1Jd_Y?t=255 January 2020 - In other words, Intelligent Design, and a direct inference to God as the Intelligence behind life, (via the non-locality of quantum information and/or the non-locality of quantum entanglement), has, for all intents and purposes, finally achieved experimental confirmation. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/karsten-pultz-why-random-processes-cannot-produce-information-a-new-argument/#comment-690519
Verse:
John 1:4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
bornagain77_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT}

Here are a few notes supporting the claim that "Even The Simplest Life Forms Are Extraordinarily Complex" The "simplest" life currently found on the earth is the parasitic Mycoplasmal. It has between a 0.56-1.38 megabase genome. Yet Mycoplasma is not a 'free living' cell but is a parasitic bacteria, with a stripped down genome, which is dependent on its host for a number of essential functions. A independent 'free-living' cell, such as a e-coli bacterium, has about 10 times as many genes as Mycoplasma (484 genes to 4,288 genes respectively):
Mycoplasma Excerpt: There are no free-living Mycoplasma, they are strictly parasites. They parasitize a wide range of organism including humans, plants, animals, and insects. Mycoplasma grow very slowly, even under perfect conditions, with a generation time ranging up to nine hours in some species. They also have a very long lag phase, so it may take an entire week before colonies become visible on agar plates. Due to their degraded genome, and inability to perform basic functions, Mycoplasma rely on their host for much of their nutrition. http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Mycoplasma#Ecology Meet Mycoplasma, a parasitic bare-bones bacterium, with 484 genes - schematic representation of integrated enzyme cycles http://www.pnas.org/content/103/2/425/F3.large.jpg
Craig Venter found that the minimal complexity for a cell that he was able to get down to was 473 genes
Microbe with stripped-down DNA may hint at secrets of life - Mar 24, 2016 Excerpt: The newly created bacterium has a smaller genetic code than does any natural free-living counterpart, with 531,000 DNA building blocks containing 473 genes. (Humans have more than 3 billion building blocks and more than 20,000 genes). But even this stripped-down organism is full of mystery. Scientists say they have little to no idea what a third of its genes actually do. "We're showing how complex life is, even in the simplest of organisms," researcher J. Craig Venter told reporters. "These findings are very humbling.",,, The genome is not some one-and-only minimal set of genes needed for life itself. For one thing, if the researchers had pared DNA from a different bacterium they would probably have ended up with a different set of genes.,,, The genome is "as small as we can get it and still have an organism that is ... useful," Hutchison said.,,, http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_SKINNY_GENES
Yet, even the 'reduced complexity' of the parasitic Mycoplasma easily exceeds man's ability to produce such integrated complexity in his computer programs:
Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors - Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8 "No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed?" http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-2-29.pdf First-Ever Blueprint of 'Minimal Cell' Is More Complex Than Expected - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: A network of research groups,, approached the bacterium at three different levels. One team of scientists described M. pneumoniae's transcriptome, identifying all the RNA molecules, or transcripts, produced from its DNA, under various environmental conditions. Another defined all the metabolic reactions that occurred in it, collectively known as its metabolome, under the same conditions. A third team identified every multi-protein complex the bacterium produced, thus characterising its proteome organisation. "At all three levels, we found M. pneumoniae was more complex than we expected," http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091126173027.htm There’s No Such Thing as a ‘Simple’ Organism - November 2009 Excerpt: In short, there was a lot going on in lowly, supposedly simple M. pneumoniae, and much of it is beyond the grasp of what’s now known about cell function. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/basics-of-life/ Simplest Microbes More Complex than Thought - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: PhysOrg reported that a species of Mycoplasma,, “The bacteria appeared to be assembled in a far more complex way than had been thought.” Many molecules were found to have multiple functions: for instance, some enzymes could catalyze unrelated reactions, and some proteins were involved in multiple protein complexes." http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm#20091229a To Model the Simplest Microbe in the World, You Need 128 Computers - July 2012 Excerpt: Mycoplasma genitalium has one of the smallest genomes of any free-living organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes. That's a fraction of the size of even another bacterium like E. coli, which has 4,288 genes.,,, The bioengineers, led by Stanford's Markus Covert, succeeded in modeling the bacterium, and published their work last week in the journal Cell. What's fascinating is how much horsepower they needed to partially simulate this simple organism. It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes.,,, ,,the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable, and difficult to manage, even given Moore's Law. The M. genitalium model required 28 subsystems to be individually modeled and integrated, and many critics of the work have been complaining on Twitter that's only a fraction of what will eventually be required to consider the simulation realistic.,,, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/to-model-the-simplest-microbe-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/
bornagain77_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT}

We have known for a long time about the complexity of single-celled organisms. Darwin believed them to be simple, since it was the understanding by everyone in his day. For macro-evolution to work, it is required that they be simple. There is nothing scientific about his hypothesis and should be moved to the fiction sections of bookstores where it belongs. It has never been observed and the results have never been replicated. Both are required to move from hypothesis to theory.BobRyan_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT}

Repetitio mater studiorum est. Repetition is the mother of all learning. so let me repeat the following: evolutionary theory 'is a fact' but ironically, this very absurd theory can't explain the existence / origin of the MOST ABUNDANT biological entity on Earth ... Viruses. Why nobody talks about it especially during the Coronavirus outbreak when the whole World is upside down ? So what is evolutionary theory good for when it can't explain the origin of the MOST ABUNDANT biological entity on our planet ?martin_r_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT}

It's a huge leap to go from replicating molecules to coded information processing systems. It's an obstacle that nature cannot surmount. But that is moot as nature seems to be incapable of producing biologically relevant molecular replicators.ET_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

"Many believe that science supports a natural origin of life, but this reasoning is shown to be circular because they have constrained the scientific process to only consider natural phenomena."
A hallmark of poor reasoning. Thank you 'News'.Truthfreedom_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply