Software Engineer’s Off the Cuff Requirements List for Simple Cell

_{Barry Arrington

October 19, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

InVivoVeritas writes:

Here is the quote from the Jack W. Szostak interview:

We think that a primitive cell has to have two parts. First, it has to have a cell membrane that can be a boundary between itself and the rest of the earth. And then there has to be some genetic material, which has to perform some function that’s useful for the cell and get replicated to be inherited. The part we’ve come to understand reasonably well is the membrane part. The genetic material is the harder problem; the chemistry is just more complicated. The puzzle has been understanding how a molecule like RNA can get replicated before there were enzymes and all this fancy biological stuff, protein machinery, that we have now in our cells.

I am a software engineer with tens of years of experience of implementing
software systems.

A sane software engineer when given a new project, it has a well defined
approach for taking the project from a starting idea to the final, working
product.

One of the first steps of this professional approach is to write a
“Requirement Specification” to clearly, neatly and accurately specify
each and every demand that need to be fulfilled by the final product.

I thought that it would be very instructive to only START sketching
such a “Minimum Requirements Specification for a Most-Primitive Life Form”
and after a first sketch to compare notes with Mr. Jack W. Szostak
statements in his interview.

Below you can find the first iteration of such requirement specification,
and detailed (somewhat, but not too much) only for the first of the eight
major requirements. Please do not forget, that this is the first write up,
produced with not too much thought – where I am sure I may have missed many
other major requirements.

Some conventions:

– we will call this “most primitive” form of life a “cell” – for convenience
– we will call the needed boundary of this ‘cell’ a ‘membrane’

Here is the Initial Requirement List:

1. The cell must have a physical boundary around its volume to clearly
delimit the inside of the cell from outside of the cell. Let’s call
this boundary “membrane”

List of minimum requirements for the membrane of the cell

1.1. Must provide reliable isolation of the cell content from the
outside world

1.2. Must be “permeable” to specific materials or sources of energy
that “feeds” the cell

1.3. Must have ‘substance recognition’ capabilities in order to
allow or prohibit admission inside the cell of the good respective
bad ‘materials’ (sensory capability).

1.4. Must have ‘open gate through membrane’ and ‘close gate through
membrane’ reactions and mechanisms to open ‘pores’ (openings)
in the membrane when good versus bad ‘materials’ are recognized
outside or inside the membrane (reactive capability).

1.5. INFORMATIONAL SUPPORT PERSPECTIVE:

1.5.1. The membrane must exhibit a capacity to store and process
information locally about the nature/identity of the good
materials as well as about bad materials. Logically
that is equivalent with a ‘registry’ of good/bad
materials.

1.5.2. Pattern recognition: the membrane must have pattern
recognition informational capabilities to accurately
recognize any ‘material’ (or ‘material pattern’) that
is available in its own ‘registry’ memory and to
send appropriate signals to the control agents in the
membrane when such materials are detected in its
external or internal environment.

1.5.3. The membrane must have a set of control mechanisms
on how to react to an ‘inventory’ of stored information
of good and bad materials, in particular on what
membrane ‘pores’ to open or to close when particular
materials are identified.

1.5.4. Most probable the membrane should have ability to
‘communicate’ information/signals to the inside the
cell when material ‘signatures’ are detected.
(information communication and signaling)

2. The cell must have mechanisms to feed itself from outside world with
specific substances that provide food/sources of energy for the
(metabolism) processes that animate the cell.

3. The cell must have mechanisms to replicate itself into one or more
similar descendent cells that exhibit the same behaviors and capabilities
as the mother cell.

4. The cell should/may have mobility in order to leave a world environment
that it detects as unfavorable and move toward other areas of the
environment that are more favorable to its continued existence and
proliferation.

5. The cell should/may have mechanism to ‘sense’ its environment and to
‘react’ accordingly. To ‘recognize’ ‘favorable’ conditions/elements in its
environment as well as ‘recognize’ unfavorable conditions/elements
in its environment.

6. The cell must have ability to transform the raw materials/energy
received from environment through its membrane and transform them
into different type of materials that are proper for its own internal
‘construction’ projects.

7. The cell should/may have capability of identifying ‘refuse’ materials
resulting from its material transformation and conversion processes
and forcing these ‘refuse’ out of the cell through the membrane to
outside world.

8. The cell should/may have time measuring / time signaling capabilities
in order to control its own material input, material transformation,
material output and cell replication processes on specific timelines
and coordinated schedules.

I develop to the next level of detail only the ‘membrane requirements’ for this
‘most primitive’ form of life.

I guess that some serious thought on these major requirements will distil
into somewhat unexpected – but logically defensible – lower level
requirements that involve information processing, material transportation,
information communication inside the cells – that, together will construct
an objective picture of the REAL COMPLEXITY that would be required for
such a MOST PRIMITIVE FORM OF LIFE.

What is not immediately apparent for anyone is that the living world and all
its members manifest – it’s true, in a varied degree – the “autonomy”
characteristic which is another name for ‘viability’ ‘survivability’.

This autonomy capability is extremely complex, demanding and multi-faceted
and is also “extremely expensive” to “implement” by a designer,
by evolution or by any entity.

Let’s do not forget that humankind in its most advanced state of
technological progress, was not ever capable of dreaming to construct
any artifact to an approaching level of autonomy – as it is routinely
end richly encountered among the members of the living world.

In conclusion, Mr. Jack W. Szostak – the Nobel laureate – seems to be
extremely naive and ‘uneducated’ about the complexity of the task
he started on about 25 years ago: to figure out the origin of life.

Comments

Thanks for a thought-provoking post, Chas D.
Missed this - thanks for the thanks! Sorry if I misread you. A metaphor struck me - hardly original, since we have the "Spark of Life", but the idea of a flame seems pertinent. You have to have energy. Almost literally, we burn - albeit rather slowly. We roll electrons down gradients of free energy, having been shoved 'uphill' by sunlight or raw chemistry. I do think that is the #1 constraint, and must predate everything else, including replication. I think that the presence of that same adenine-ribose-phosphate group in RNA (for 'information') and ATP (central energetic unit) and NAD and FAD (central to respiration and to photosynthesis and other more exotic electron transport chains) is deeply fundamental. It does a completely different job in each case, and yet that same molecular group pops up again and again. These molecules are vital, in the deepest sense. The essence is igniting the spark of replication. Whether an intelligence spent ages flicking its metaphorical lighter trying to ignite the bare tinder, I don't know. But once the flame had caught, an endless supply of replicators could keep themselves going like the olympic torch, a wildfire of replicating replicators, spreading outwards to clothe the world. Or that, in my more poetic moments, is how I might express it! :0)Chas D_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

Molecular evolution apparently covers much more ground than my definition allows, so I am probably misusing the phrase, or at least using it in a confusing way. I am far from an expert in biology, and I apologize for the confusion. Is there some other term or phrase that would better express my meaning?
Not really! It's fair enough. There is a legitimate term, "chemical evolution", referring to the progressive sticking together of nuclei inside stars (interestingly, down an energy gradient, with iron at the bottom). Changes in simple molecular systems are probably legitimately so described also. But it does cause confusion, and many evo-skeptic commentators have an apparent major difficulty in disentangling the two ideas of "Life-from-non-life" on the one hand and "Modification of that life" in the other. I would put it at the head of the list of "stock misconceptions", analogous to UD's list of "arguments we have heard before and don't want to hear again"! I think the problem is that critics of the biological consensus are not always as au fait with the material as they might be. It's not even common knowledge amongst biologists, to be honest. Very little evolutionary theory was taught in my grad course in biochemistry. I have tried to redress the balance, by buying myself textbooks and trying to get to grips with them - because it is interesting. But of course, if one is hostile to the very idea, one would not spend very long in understanding what can be a densely mathematical topic. Nonetheless, biological evolution is specifically change in populations once you have replication, not anything that might occur before you do. So, in short, there is a very sharp mechanistic discontinuity between incremental processes leading towards the first replicator, and those leading from it, which is why I critique the "project design" approach of the OP. If one thinks in terms of a large number of things that have to interact before a functioning replicator can emerge, one finds oneself with a problem either way (if mechanistic considerations actually matter!). If one's background is in IT, or engineering, one may think it perfectly conceivable that the bits and pieces can be manoeuvred into place. Even skeptical chemists seem to have little problem with this, which surprises me. But I think that this demands more than mere intelligence, but unknown physics as well - unless an incremental approach is considered.Chas D_{October 24, 2011
October
10
Oct
24
24
2011
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

ChasD: "Consequences? Consequences? You say there are consequences in changing one’s position on a scientific issue? Whatever can you mean?" ==== Mean ??? Consequences of bastardized science ruining our planet with irresponsible technologies like GMOs because in their minds they know it all. As David Suzuki said, "We don't know enough about DNA to predict how that organism is going to behave." Don't tell an evolutionist they don't know something.Eocene_{October 24, 2011
October
10
Oct
24
24
2011
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT}

You seem to understand me to be promoting some sort of a "big bang" theory of intelligent intervention into natural processes -- large-scale supernatural "fiddling" with nature at one or more points in the process (or perhaps the single instantaneous event) of abiogenesis. I have not consciously promoted any such thing. At most, I have intended to assert merely that natural processes, as understood by empirical science, seem incapable of producing life. I suggested that intelligent agency provides a reasonable explanation for the existence of life. I've not speculated on how or when intelligent agency may have impinged upon natural processes. Assuming intelligence, or products of intelligence, were injected into the universe, did it happen only at the moment of the cosmic big bang? (If so, why wouldn't we see obvious evidence that inorganic systems, conforming to the laws of physics, tend towards life, rather than away from life?) Was information injected in one or more massive chunks at points in time well after the big bang? Was it injected in small bits and pieces over millions and millions of years? I don't know, nor do I care to speculate, for present purposes. As I wrote in a previous post, I have no bias against incremental development. But I freely confess that I do believe that ultimately, life arose as a consequence of divine decree. And I recognize that to be a metaphysical belief on my part -- a belief that, in my opinion, is fully consistent with science, properly defined.
From a purely empirical standpoint, we do not know if intelligence is capable of abiogenesis.
Certainly, intelligence alone is incapable of abiogenesis. But then, intelligence alone is also incapable of building a jumbo jet, or even of writing a letter. To produce a physical effect, an intelligent agent must have the ability to interact with the physical world -- to manipulate material entities to his (or her) means and ends. A physically impotent intelligent agent simply will not do. This much seems obvious. It also seems obvious that empirical science can say nothing directly about OOL, because the beginnings of life are probably forever beyond our ability to observe. Empirical science can neither confirm nor deny materialistic abiogenesis. Likewise, empirical science can neither confirm nor deny special creation, say, by an omniscient and omnipotent deity. (As an aside, the oxymoron "theistic abiogenesis" is highly suggestive.) Empirical science does have a proper place in the OOL discussion, though. We have observed the ability of intelligent agents to swim against the current, so to speak, of thermodynamic entropy. Human beings create physical systems every day -- systems that are highly improbable (I would say impossible) apart from intelligence. That makes intelligent agency a reasonable (but not a necessary) inference for OOL purposes. Materialistic abiogenesis has no comparable support from empirical science. Your statement raises another, perhaps less obvious, philosophical question in my mind: Does a physical effect that intelligence is incapable of producing fall under the purview of science, given science's own view of itself? Suppose that intelligence is incapable of abiogenesis -- that even a supremely intelligent agent, with limitless power, is unable to create life from non-life. Would that not implicitly exclude abiogenesis from the purview of science altogether? (Here I mean science in general, not just empirical science.) My thoughts along this line are half-baked, and the question may prove to be vacuous in the end. But I'm out of time to develop my thoughts further.
From a theoretical standpoint, the ability of intelligence to create life (in one step) is highly suspect — unless you make certain religious assumptions that have no basis in empirical science.
As I wrote earlier, I have no particular commitment to a one-step beginning for life. As for metaphysical and/or religious assumptions, I'm willing to be explicit and open about them in the workplace, in the classroom, and in the courtroom. Are materialistic abiogenists or macroevolutionists willing to do likewise? Thanks for a thought-provoking post, Chas D.kdonnelly_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

I am using the phrase molecular evolution to refer to the theoretical process by which abiogenesis occurred, i.e. the presumably incremental sequence of natural events by which the first life arose from inorganic systems. Molecular evolution apparently covers much more ground than my definition allows, so I am probably misusing the phrase, or at least using it in a confusing way. I am far from an expert in biology, and I apologize for the confusion. Is there some other term or phrase that would better express my meaning? (Abiogenesis, by itself, does not quite capture my intended meaning. I want to emphasize process, and successive stepwise increases in complexity. But the term abiogenesis, unqualified, allows for the possibility of the instantaneous appearance of life, a possibility I wish to exclude for present purposes.)
...I’m not talking about evolution!
I understand that you're not talking about evolution in the Darwinian sense; Darwinian evolution could only begin after the first life was on the scene. But if abiogenesis was an incremental process, as opposed to an instantaneous event, wouldn't the process qualify as a kind of evolution?
I recognise a connection in the mind between apparent ‘irreducible complexity’ issues in the two systems, and prejudice against incremental arguments...
I hope that I've not written anything that would suggest that I have a prejudice, or even a bias, against the possibility that life was constructed (intelligently or not) by increments. I have no such bias. I see no inherent contradiction in positing intelligent agency while simultaneously allowing for incremental advances in complexity. "Incremental development by intelligent agency" is not a contradiction in terms.
It is comparatively trivial to engineer multiple elements and place them in a single functional genome. It is not trivial to take multiple molecules and prevent them from following their energetic gradients until you decide it is time.
I think I agree with everything you assert in your last paragraph, provided that the necessary emphasis is placed upon the comparatively in "comparatively trivial".kdonnelly_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Cell energetics is all about them moving from molecules with greater affinity for them to those with lesser
D'oh! Feel free to point out the glaring error in that statement! They move both ways, of course, but you need to put energy in - roll the ball uphill - to make 'em move the way I'd placed them.Chas D_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

It’s Dawkins’ METHINKSITISLIKEAWEASEL fallacy at the level of molecular evolution.
Mayhap, but I'm not talking about evolution! The topic is abiogenesis - the plausibility of rival proposed mechanisms for creating one, or several, replicating cells. I recognise a connection in the mind between apparent 'irreducible complexity' issues in the two systems, and prejudice against incremental arguments, but they really rely upon a wholly different explanatory framework. The "first cell problem", from a design perspective, requires one to prevent molecular interactions from taking place until one is good and ready for them to take place. The "complex specified structure problem", from a design perspective, relates to means by which the parts can find themselves together in a functioning cell. It is comparatively trivial to engineer multiple elements and place them in a single functional genome. It is not trivial to take multiple molecules and prevent them from following their energetic gradients until you decide it is time.Chas D_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

...this [incremental development of a complex subsystem over multiple generations] is a fundamentally different issue to that being discussed – abiogenesis.
Yes, molecular evolution is different in that it obviously cannot build something over multiple generations, since no replication mechanism is in place. Incremental advances in the process of molecular evolution are more like one-shot propositions: for each molecular step towards life, all the necessary components for chemical "viability" have to be put into place virtually simultaneously. (Not all steps simultaneously, but for each step, all the necessary components simultaneously.) However, there is a similarity between the Darwinian problem and the molecular problem. There is the temptation to assume, in the case of molecular evolution, that some molecular sub-component -- one that's necessary but not sufficient for the next evolutionary step forward -- having been produced by random processes, will now be somehow preserved until the balance of the required sub-components are introduced. Forces at the molecular level (e.g. entropy, competing chemical attractions, etc) will almost always guarantee that preservation will not occur. If this novel molecular arrangement were stable, it would itself be the next step forward. But it's not stable, and is therefore highly unlikely to be preserved. Assuming that preservation does occur greatly increases the statistical probability that the next step will be reached. But the assumption is wrong, resulting in a vast underestimation of the statistical probability of abiogenesis by naturalistic mechanisms. It's Dawkins' METHINKSITISLIKEAWEASEL fallacy at the level of molecular evolution.kdonnelly_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Evolutionists often assert that complex subsystems within an organism develop over many generations. So, during the construction process, I can’t just place a couple of elements next to each other and say, ”Staaay…hold your positions for a thousand generations while the hundred other elements I need for a functional subsystem come into being
Just to note also that this is a fundamentally different issue to that being discussed - abiogenesis. The interactors you refer to here are not interacting through molecular mechanisms, but through larger-scale physical ones. It is a problem of a completely different type to determine the ways in which IC systems in organisms may be achieved, versus the molecular problem of constructing a first cell, by whatever means we happen - religiously or not - to incline towards.Chas D_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

(Are there examples of cells using electrons for energy?)
All cells use electrons for energy! Electrons are the fundamental unit of energy currency. Cell energetics is all about them moving from molecules with greater affinity for them to those with lesser (redox, or oxidation-reduction pairs), equivalent to rolling a ball down a hill. In photosynthesis, photons merely excite them 'uphill', and then they are 'rolled' down chains of serially greater electron affinity, the energy being used to do work. Some cells rely on importing molecules in which the electrons are still 'uphill' with respect to the redox gradient. Ours, for example - we get them courtesy of plants.Chas D_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

It is commonplace to see intelligence overcome obstacles like this.
It is commonplace for intelligence to construct complexity from materials, collections of molecules that retain their integrity while you get them all into place - to build a jumbo jet, say. It is also commonplace for intelligence to construct software systems that do not need to function in an integrated way until one turns on the power, and presses "start". The program's statements don't start executing while you are still writing the code. In both of these scenarios, the parts of our construction stay put until we want them to operate, then we can animate them. But this does not hold in the molecular world, and it is NOT commonplace for the kind of complexity observed in a cell to be built by intelligence ab initio.
But we have never, to the best of my knowledge, observed random natural processes overcome similar problems. Perhaps, in fact, natural processes have, but the point here is that we have not actually witnessed the event.
We have never observed intelligence achieving the kind of suspension of physical laws that would be necessary to create a complex molecular system in one step, so spare me the "you-weren't-there" rhetoric. This one does not cut both ways - you are not merely appealing to one of two equally unobserved events, but invoking completely unknown physics.
So, from a purely empirical standpoint, we do not know if natural processes are capable of abiogenesis, or even if they’re capable of modest incremental changes in the real complexity of extant organisms.
From a purely empirical standpoint, we do not know if intelligence is capable of abiogenesis. And I think, in this "big bang" scenario, that it is impossible with known physics. Invoke unknown physics if you wish, but don't attempt to suggest that this is simply an argument that "cuts both ways".
From a theoretical standpoint, the ability of nature to create life, or to significantly increase the complexity of existing life, is highly suspect — unless you make certain religious assumptions that have no basis in empirical science.
From a theoretical standpoint, the ability of intelligence to create life (in one step) is highly suspect — unless you make certain religious assumptions that have no basis in empirical science.Chas D_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT}

I place these molecules here, and those there, and make these building blocks available in the environment … but I can’t stop them reacting.
This problem (of preserving the placement of arranged elements of a system during construction, but before kick-starting the system) cuts both ways. Evolutionists often assert that complex subsystems within an organism develop over many generations. So, during the construction process, I can’t just place a couple of elements next to each other and say, ”Staaay...hold your positions for a thousand generations while the hundred other elements I need for a functional subsystem come into being, and are put into place. There is no selective pressure to help you maintain your positions, since the subsystem is not yet functional and can therefore provide no selective advantage to your host organism. Furthermore, entropic forces are working against you, but don't let that deter you either." The problem, in my mind, seems especially acute for molecular evolution. It is commonplace to see intelligence overcome obstacles like this. But we have never, to the best of my knowledge, observed random natural processes overcome similar problems. Perhaps, in fact, natural processes have, but the point here is that we have not actually witnessed the event. So, from a purely empirical standpoint, we do not know if natural processes are capable of abiogenesis, or even if they're capable of modest incremental changes in the real complexity of extant organisms. From a theoretical standpoint, the ability of nature to create life, or to significantly increase the complexity of existing life, is highly suspect -- unless you make certain religious assumptions that have no basis in empirical science.kdonnelly_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Just to stack my software designer and biochemist hats rather uncomfortably one atop the other, I find myself dissatisfied with the hand-dusting that goes on once people have pursued this particular "IC" argument through. Let us suppose that the specification is as complex as you wish to adduce; that it is as irreducible as you may like to think; that it is based on as code-like a piece of 'information technology' as you think appropriate. How do those of a mechanistic turn of mind imagine that the project was implemented? One may be wholly unsympathetic to the notion of blind undirected forces arranging molecules just so, such that complexity can arise from simplicity in a stepwise manner. But suppose one has to implement the designed system, and not just sit on the sidelines catcalling. One has all the ingredients in separately labelled glass jars. One knows precisely how they need to be organised. So let's start organising them. I build a membrane just here; I stitch together a genome; I place these molecules here, and those there, and make these building blocks available in the environment ... but I can't stop them reacting. I can't just place a couple of molecules next to each other and say " ... staaay ... wait for it ..." while I get on with building the next bit. And then, when everything is in place, I somehow have to cause the whole set of interacting molecules and systems to kick into action, functioning for all the world like a cell that was replicated from another, all biochemical pathways primed, all transcription factors bound appropriately for the chosen initial phase of the cell cycle and all epigenetic factors in place. I dare say the OOL picture assuming complexity arising from simplicity may be a tough one to swallow for many here, but the single-stage assembly one seems to me to have a lot less going for it. One may be happy with the design inference, but to me, designed or not, the most logical route to modern complexity is from ancestral simplicity. Which places the two positions much closer together than this OP, or many commenters, seem prepared to allow. You are aware, I'm sure, how human complexity is established? So why not, taking the idea down a level, cellular complexity?Chas D_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

Thanks Barry for beginning the discussion. Re: "1.1. Must provide reliable isolation of the cell content from the outside world" As I understand it, the membrane must provide an anaerobic interior for numerous cell processes. Consequently, oxygen transfer must be controlled. Re: "1.2. Must be “permeable” to specific materials or sources of energy that “feeds” the cell" These are two very different requirements: 1.2A The cell wall must be permeable to each of the materials it requires for it: 1.2A.1 To reproduce itself. 1.2A.2 To sustain itself. 1.2A.3 To process function specific components. 1.2B The cell wall must be permeable to the energy it requires: 1.2B.1 To reproduce itself. 1.2B.2 To sustain itself. 1.2B.3 To process function specific components. For its energy requirements, the cell must: 1) pass photons and convert them to biochemically useful energetic molecules, (photosynthesis) and/or 2) pass biochemically useful chemicals. (Are there examples of cells using electrons for energy?)DLH_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

Well, let’s be perfectly honest as to why there is this constant definition shell game of what information is and is not.
Excellent! I'll pull up a chair. [...] Oh ... not quite what I was hoping for.
[...]As a result of this failure and motivated by a constant hatred of just what consequences would mean to admit that DNA quite possibly had an intelligent designer, we instead get time wasting arguments meant to go nowhere.
Consequences? Consequences? You say there are consequences in changing one's position on a scientific issue? Whatever can you mean?Chas D_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

"Somehwere out there in the Universe, there must exist some unexplainable un-designed codes that none of us are aware of. Unfortunately for their side the burden of proof is on them to produce and show us these mystery codes." Wow.....the goalposts have REALLY shifted this time. LOL. What a joke. Explore the universe, produce unexplainable "mystery codes" we are unware of. And you know what? If I came back with them, I'll still be unable to prove they weren't designed. Because that's impossible! Time and time again, ID is presented with new enzymes, de novo genes, etc, and you just shout designed! Its all ID is, a predetermination. Spot on EO. Spot on.DrREC_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT}

Eo: spot on.kairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

ES, ever so gracious as always.kairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

KF, no problem.Eugene S_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT}

11.1.2.3.3 Elizabeth, Noted. We have posted ##3 and 4 almost simultaneously.Eugene S_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, I don't remember posting any insinuations in your regard. I just agreed to the form of definition you proposed without the word "spontaneous". In fact I did not look into M-W until it was noticed by somebody else that the definition you gave had in fact been changed. I believe, I have posted nothing that I need to apologise for. Please explain yourself more clearly, what it was that I said which offended you.Eugene S_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT}

Absolutely.Eugene S_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: "Hello Eocene, I think she may have simply added the “spontaneous” part because your conversation began with the topic of self-organizing systems. On the other hand, it was in her best interest to leave of the DNA part. Against all evidence to the contrary, she still gets queasie about recognizing DNA is a base-four digital encoding system. The phrase “DNA or the binary digits in a computer system” does not serve her purpose." ===== Well, let's be perfectly honest as to why there is this constant definition shell game of what information is and is not. Now we all know what the definition of information is. We know it and they know it. Certainly Merriam-Webster knows it and gave the common sense universal understood definition when they made the comparisons. The comparison for which Merriam-Webster THEMSELVES made between a computer communications system and the even more sophisticated complex communication system of DNA being omitted from her personally architectured version of Merriam-Webster's definition had more to do with ideology and worldview. Personally I don't care why it was done, but it was. It would have been easier and more honest just to relate what her personal feeling of information was, but unfortunately it doesn't hold up to a universally accepted understanding. They simply cannot allow for an "Intelligent Agent/Designer" as being responsible for DNA's origins.(remember the foot in the door quote???) That is the motivation behind all these scientific bickerings, for both sides(one is for, the other against). In making the comparison that both DNA (and let's be further honest, we do not know the origin of for no other reason than none of of were actually there) and computer codes (which we do know the origin of because it is well documented and many have first hand experience in handling) both fit the Merriam-Webster definition identically. The scientific inference is that once again, all codes that we KNOW the origin of come from an intelligent mind, therefore it is reasonable that we have 100% inference that DNA had it's origins from an intelligent mind, even though none of us were actually present in the beginning observing it happen before our very eyes. The problem is that such a scientific inference infuriates the other side and they try their best to stop such scientific investigation by fuzzying up the very definition of just what the word/term "information" or even "Code" really means. I mean I've heard every kind of crackpot definition from 'stars in galaxies are information' - 'rocks in a landslide are information' - 'patterns in snowflakes are information' - 'gravity is information' and the insane list forced fed to us by self-promoting intellects who should know better is endless. Somehwere out there in the Universe, there must exist some unexplainable un-designed codes that none of us are aware of. Unfortunately for their side the burden of proof is on them to produce and show us these mystery codes. It's easy for us to show proof of code origins because the evidence is all around us in our modern world. Thus far they have failed miserably to provide a Miller/Urey type experiment where blind undirected purposeless forces of physics magically by means of luck just happen to rearrange a toxic chemcial cocktails into intelligent purpose driven informational codes. As a result of this failure and motivated by a constant hatred of just what consequences would mean to admit that DNA quite possibly had an intelligent designer, we instead get time wasting arguments meant to go nowhere. Of course there is a historical precedent for this type of argument. I mean it's hardly anything new or under the sun as Solomon wrote it. It's called "What Is Truth?"Eocene_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT}

ES, pardon if I add above that you hold a PhD in Physics, as well as your current vocation.kairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT}

Cheers Elizabeth. I think I'll take a break myself and cool off a little.material.infantacy_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

Note that I suggested the worldview issue had a bearing on your understanding of information, and rounded out the comment with the suggestion of it driving your foregone conclusion that matter gives rise to information. I did not tie it to your insistence that DNA code is a base 4 numbering system.
OK, fair enough.
Maybe you should just slow down, you’re apparently extremely frustrated at any perceived provocation. I didn’t suggest you shut up, not even a little. I noted that you comment prodigiously. Not exactly the same thing.
Well, I do get riled at being accused of dishonesty or subterfuge, and I do get hot under the collar at Christians who try to defend the indefensible! And yes, I note that you did not tell me to shut up. I told myself that. It was good advice. I should take it and get off to bed :) Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

The reason it should be absolutely obvious that my objection to the “DNA is digital base 4? had nothing to do with my “worldview” is because I have nothing against “DNA is digital base 2?.
Note that I suggested the worldview issue had a bearing on your understanding of information, and rounded out the comment with the suggestion of it driving your foregone conclusion that matter gives rise to information. I did not tie it to your insistence that DNA code is a base 4 numbering system.
Yes, I should shut up, really.
Maybe you should just slow down, you're apparently extremely frustrated at any perceived provocation. I didn't suggest you shut up, not even a little. I noted that you comment prodigiously. Not exactly the same thing.material.infantacy_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

We will also stick to the dilemma that if there is no membrane, then the uncontrolled environment will plausibly be ruinous through interfering cross-reactions. I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific. If we don't know the chemistry, we don't know what interfering cross-reactions we have to worry about. But if there is a membrane then it has to have a porting mechanism by which required input energy and materials flow in and wastes out, in a controlled fashion. Well, in the scenario I am suggesting, the membrane itself is simply a plane across which a free energy gradient can become established. This is not a living cell; it has no materials or waste products. I am suggesting that such a source of potential energy is an essential preresquisite for a plausible replicator (ie, metabolism first, but only just). And I point again to the striking reappearance of that adenine-sugar-phosphate group in both informational and (in 3 different molecules) in absolutely fundamental energetic roles. Whether by accident or design, this multiple role is, I think, central to the whole shebang. The only empirically known means for that is quite complex and functionally specific. I cannot resist pointing out that the only empirically known designers (as opposed to inferred ones) are so far incapable of getting within a mile of synthesising a cell from scratch. So far, we don't know if a cell can be intelligently designed, even though we have numerous examples to base it on. Materials and methods would be nice - just how did that first complex mix become animated? Demonstration first, then explanation! :0)Chas D_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

The reason it should be absolutely obvious that my objection to the "DNA is digital base 4" had nothing to do with my "worldview" is because I have nothing against "DNA is digital base 2". And I can envisage no worldview that would balk at base 4 but not at base 2. On the other hand I can think of other perfectly good reasons, and I've given them. The reason I added "whatever that means" is that I never know what "worldview" means. I don't have a set "worldview" although obviously I have a Point of View, which, I hope, changes as I come across new evidence and persuasive arguments. But sure, no-one is free of bias, and I don't claim to be.
But I note that you invite this, as you seem to have some stream-of-consciousness comment to make regarding just about every subject here at UD.
Yes, I should shut up, really.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

I'm not sorry for expressing my suspicions, and your indignation doesn't do much to assuage them. The nature/style of your interactions warranted comment, and I made a few. Even your response, "whatever that means," betrays a certain aloofness. Surely you aren't suggesting that your worldview contributes nothing to how you evaluate evidence. You seem a little too intelligent, and I would hope too wise, for such nonsense. However I'll withhold further commentary on your possible motives, at least for the time being. I recognize that you're having discussions on multiple fronts, which is certainly a challenge. But I note that you invite this, as you seem to have some stream-of-consciousness comment to make regarding just about every subject here at UD.material.infantacy_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply