Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

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
Eugene said:
Actually, I must say I do not agree with the wiki on the example given of the information processing systems. To be honest, I gave it a full read after I posted ;( While the definition given is correct, the interpretation is not. E.g. they consider a rock orbiting the earth and the earth itself an information processing system, which is bizarre to me because without an observer it does not make a lot of sense. However in the interpretation part they do say “it can be argued”.
You are on the verge of a profound insight into the nature of information. Above, UprightBiped is encouraging your toward a -- what to call it? -- a "Werner Gitt" model of information, an anthropocentric view of information, and that seems to be the paradigm you are coming from, but the wiki article is a good example of where that paradigm fails; as you say, without an observer, how can that be an information system? Why, because the observer (in an anthropocentric sense, all interacting elements of nature are "observers" in a physics sense) is not intrinsic to information. Observers certainly use and process information, and humans make use of information that is highly abstracted and contextualized for language (like the concepts we are discussing in this thread), but information is physical. Or more precisely, physical is information. You can't have physical without information, or vice versa. (Calling Dr. Landauer...) "Software" and "digital" are metaphors that humans use to conceptualize discrete systems. Developers and software geeks like me get so "into it" that we are blinded to the fact that that is only analogous thinking; we confuse the map for the territory. "Digital" is just a way to conceptually abstract physical configurations and physical dynamics. It's all just atoms and particles and physical law when you get beyond the metaphor. Anyway, I suggest that the interpretation you are having a hard time with is the key to a major insight into how information works as a conceptual AND a physical model. Think about it: if the footprint was there, and no one ever saw it, was it still information? No observer, no information? That's a model that doesn't cohere. The information is implicit in the physical configuration. If a human, or a bear, comes by and can "make sense" of that particular pattern of physical stuff in a way that triggers other physical events (the thought "hey, there was a human here"), then you have an additional kind of processing happening as well. But the footprint is information no matter who observes or does not observe the footprint later on.eigenstate
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
But you are correct about Eugene. Apologies to him, and to Eocene for mistaking him for Eugene, who had of course read my post. My eyesight is not as good as it should be. However, the record is perfectly clear, and I hope you are both prepared to retract your insinuation that I attempted to hide some unwanted part of the M-W definition of information.Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
I never said that you were “hiding” anything. I said it was in your best interest to leave off the example given by MW
heh. I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Sure I didn't hide it, I just had a vested interest in not typing it, eh? Come on! I quoted the thing in full right at the beginning of the conversation!!!! And the only reason it wasn't there in my attempted operational definition of "self-organisation" for Eugene was because I was trying to substitute a definition of "information system" into his! Andy, as I have said repeatedly, there is nothing "queasy" about my objection to the notion of Base 4 digital. It's just my inner geek gets really annoyed by it. Base 2, fine. Digital, fine. Code, if you insist, fine. Base 4, no way. It's not in base 4 in any meaningful sense, as I have just explained above. And when it comes to games UBP, I'd like you to consider stopping with this "game" you seem to be playing of trying to insinuate a dishonest motive to me at every possible opportunity. It's very tiresome.Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
Your previous denials aren’t likely confusion nor misunderstanding. A confession on your part would equal a concession it seems, and perhaps a drastic one for your worldview.
Please stop doing this. This has absolutely nothing to do "with my worldview" whatever that means, as my position on gene expression should make perfectly clear. Sheesh. The number of nasturtiums being cast on the integrity of us evos is enough to make any of us think you guys were worried or something! Desist. It's an interesting topic and good people can disagree.Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
They will be curious to know what is so threatening about acknowledging that digital code is in the cell.
Speaking for myself: let me repeat that there is so little "threatening about acknowledging that digital code is in the cell" that I freely acknowledge it, as would most people in the field of developmental biology. Read Sean Carroll if you want to know about the "digital code in the cell". Or any text on gene expression. The working of your brain depends on that digital code. It's just not in "base 4"!Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
In D/RNA, bases in the string data structure take one of four discrete states. That makes them four state digital, much as our usual numbering system is 10-state digital and binary is 2-state digital.
No, it does not, kf. The bases do not "take one of four discrete states". A nucleotide is not a "state", and the even it you were to call it one, that "state" never changes (well, it shouldn't) in the lifetime of the organism. And mutations do not cause a nucleotide to "change state". Mutations do cause alterations to the sequence of nucleotides but these are not "state changes". You might refer to a SNP as a "state change" of that position in a sequence, but a SNP is only one kind of polymorphism. A deletion or an insertion cannot be described as a "state change" of anything. And in any case your example is of what happens within the organism itself. Within the organism the nucleotides cannot "take one of four states". They are stuck in the state they came into existence in. You cannot say that a base pair can "take one of four states" if it never does! As I said, there are plenty of senses in which DNA is code, and even a sense in which it is binary code, but there is no sensible sense in which it is in "base 4 digital". The base pairs are not "states". They are base pairs, and they don't change during the lifetime of the organism, even when replicated, unless something goes wrong, and when the the sequence changes between generations, it isn't usually the basepairs "changing state", except in one very narrow sense (SNPs).Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
F/n: Machine code is often hard-burned into an embedded system, and is manifested in a static hardware configuration in read only memory. DNA functions like that sort of ROM.kairosfocus
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
As far as Eugene, you might want to check who you are calling out. As for myself, I never said that you were "hiding" anything. I said it was in your best interest to leave off the example given by MW, and more importantly, that you were queasy about the idea of DNA being a base four digital encoding scheme. This is an issue with some history behind it were you are concerned. Your subsequent response certainly removed any doubt about that. When are you going to get past these games and attack the positive physical evidence of a semiotic state in protein synthesis?Upright BiPed
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
The self replicating facility especially.kairosfocus
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
Dr Liddle You astound me. In D/RNA, bases in the string data structure take one of four discrete states. That makes them four state digital, much as our usual numbering system is 10-state digital and binary is 2-state digital. That is about as simple a fact as anything else in this area. In mRNA, three letter words, called codons, carry out coding for AA's, to assemble proteins according to the commonly encountered genetic code. Some codons also carry out signaling functions, AUG being start as well as Meth, and there are three stop codons. The codon chains are coded, symbolic prescriptive information that functions in the Ribosome to say start with meth, add AA, add AA, . . . STOP. The AA chain is folded and put to work. The coupler to the AA in the tRNA that has a matching 3- letter anticodon, at the COOH end of the AA is standard [CCA iirc], i.e. we could misload ant tRNA by forcing it. The loading enzyme recognises the config of the particular tRNA taxi-tool arm molecule and loads it. This is digital tape control of an assembly process using a tool-tipped assembly arm system. Just what a kinematic vNSR calls for. It is noteworthy that von neumann, in conceptualising the kinematic self replicator a few years before DNA was characterised then decoded, proposed a braille-like raised rods system to code digital information. The point is that you may dismiss this set of facts and explanations as you like, but astute onlookers will see the price of reductio ad absurdum needed to cling to the attempt to dismiss the presence of digital, coded prescriptive info in the workings of the cell. They will be curious to know what is so threatening about acknowledging that digital code is in the cell. They will spot the quantity of the info, 100,000+ - billions of 4-state bases, and will see that we are well beyond the FSCI threshold. They will see in addition, there is but one known, plausible source for codes, languages, algorithms for step by step execution of solutions, and one observed source for executing machinery to execute such codes. Intelligent designers. The light bulb will go on, and they will see that there is therefore excellent reason to infer on what we know to design of key components of the living cell. So, they will see why so many of us refuse to accept the question-begging Lewontin a priori materialism and go with the evidence: the living cell is credibly designed. And, more and more, they will agree with us. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
I see no apology yet forthcoming, Eugene and UBP, for the insinuation that I was trying to "hide" part of the M-W definition of information, an insinuation clearly refuted by the fact that I had myself earlier quoted the entire definition in a response to Eugene himself, and to which he had responded - indeed it marked the start of this very conversation. You goofed guys. Kneel please.Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
Well, if someone tries to explain what is in the papers, and someone else says "not enough detail" then it seems to me fair enough to refer that someone to the papers! So what claim have you found here that is not supported by the literature?
InVivoVeritas has come up with a decent first list of what we should at least consider might be required for a simple cell. The tenor of the response? “We don’t need no stinkin’ engineering constraints; it’s way easier and much simpler than that, man! Go read the literature!”
What some of us said was: that list of requirements seems to be based on a modern cell. We aren't talking about a modern cell, we are talking about the simplest possible Darwinian-capable self-replicator. Anyway, I have responded in some detail to InVivoVeritas on one of the many threads on this topic, I have given up trying to track where the conversation venue currently is!Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
Elizabeth: "Are you saying that the members of Szostak’s lab do not have the required expertise to conduct their studies? That they are just naive “true believers” without any relevant knowledge of organic chemistry?" I have not said anything of the kind. I have said, and repeat again, that they are doing great work. When I read their papers I find that they tend to be careful in their statements, and a close reading shows *many* caveats, assumptions and the like. That is as it should be. They are proceeding as best they can in this difficult area. What I do object to is folks who make vague general statements, whether in isolation, or coupled with "it's all in the literature; go read it". Time and again we go back to the literature and, lo and behold, the claim is actually not supported by the literature. Those are the true believers. InVivoVeritas has come up with a decent first list of what we should at least consider might be required for a simple cell. The tenor of the response? "We don't need no stinkin' engineering constraints; it's way easier and much simpler than that, man! Go read the literature!"Eric Anderson
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
The book lays out the baseline to address many of the issues that still surface, sometimes in a slightly updated form. And, in particular, if you cannot directly read chs 7 - 9 on thermo-d issues and implications, pardon directness, but you are in no position to dismiss the pointed questions being asked by those of us who have worked through those issues and related issues in the context of OOL etc. (e.g. cf my always linked through my handle, App 1 which starts from exactly TMLO chs 7 - 9, and Clausius.)kairosfocus
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
DrRec, I apologize. My comment was snide and was directed at Elizabeth's general statement, not Szostak's work. I am not ignoring the literature, I hope. We have looked at Szostak's general approach in basic detail on another thread, and I'm afraid many of us found it to be quite vague as well. But, as I have said before, Szostak is doing great work and I hope his team keeps at it.Eric Anderson
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
Correction to my 11.1.2.2.4. The phrase "and why you believe that the quaternary code is imposed externally, instead of its being intrinsic to the system in which it’s integrated. Should be "and why you believe that the quaternary code is merely metaphorical, instead of its being intrinsic to the system in which it’s integrated."material.infantacy
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
EL, the physical state of a charged, byte-sized transistor set, is what it is. We impose the binary "metaphor" onto it for the purposes of digital function within an integrated system. The “metaphor” becomes necessarily inherent to the system in which it operates. Please explain to the audience how that differs crucially from the quaternary "metaphor" imposed on the DNA molecule, which functions as digital storage, and why you believe that the quaternary code is imposed externally, instead of its being intrinsic to the system in which it’s integrated. Additionally, this mock confusion of yours about representations and protocols is becoming tiring in its banality. I can represent each distinct atom in the universe with a string of 52 amino acids. Proceeding in lexicographical order, I can define that each permutation represents a discrete atom. That’s a representation. But simply proclaiming that the first permutation represents the first atom is not enough. Something is missing. You really shouldn’t need to be told this; I believe you already know. What’s missing from the above specification in order to make it useful in any way? Your previous denials aren’t likely confusion nor misunderstanding. A confession on your part would equal a concession it seems, and perhaps a drastic one for your worldview. If the representations and protocols constituting meaningful information must be imposed externally, and are not an emergent property of material interactions, then you can’t win this game.material.infantacy
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
If you want an answer, you will have to show me where I was apparently describing some systems you were interested in. All I have to go on is your quotation of my words: “What you have are molecules that obey the laws of physics and chemistry". Please link to the context. Thanks.Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
oh for pity's sakeUpright BiPed
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
Sorry, UBP, I don't understand your request. Can you please link to where I described the systems you are interested in?Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
oops. Everything after the first para is me - the first para is UBP.Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
A couple of months ago KF and I spent several posts trying to get you to understand the idea that DNA is base-four digital. Yet, you instead keep returning to the errant idea that the base has something to do with what the coding system is describing (phenotypic, etc), as oppossed to being the number of individual characters within the encoding system that can occupy any position in the code). And isn't it just maddening when you keep explaining something to somebody, and they just don't get it? ;) UBP: Look, there is no right or wrong answer as to whether DNA is "base 4 digital" or not. It's a metaphor, and whether it is a useful one depends on what you are using it for. At the level of the organism it isn't "base 4 digital" in any sense except, possibly the sense of being a static string with four characters, which is not what I would describe as "base 4 digital". There is no switching, unlike a "base N digital" system, in which the operation of the system involves switching each unit between N states. The only switching of the DNA letters occurs between generations, i.e. at the level of the population, not at the level of the organism, and even that isn't exactly a "base 4 digital" system. Single nucleotide changes do occur, but just as common are deletions and insertions and of course duplications. In other words regarding a DNA base as a "switch" really doesn't work as a metaphor. Mutations do "switch" DNA bases, but that is a very small part of what they do. Much more interesting are changes like recombination or repeats. What works much better is to regard it as a four letter alphabet that "spells" what proteins can be made. Or, some of it does. Better still is to regard it as a digital system in base 2, where the unit is the gene, and where the genes can be switched on and off. This is a really useful analogy, because the switching contingencies can be extremely deep - gene A switches off, stopping it blocking gene B which then switches on Gene C etc - and responsive to incoming signals from outside the cell. So far from being "queasie" about the idea of DNA representing a digital system, I'm quite happy to regard it as such, only not in Base 4!! At Base 4 it is utterly boring, and scarcely (if at all) worthy of the name. At Base 2 it is awesome.
Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
Now, can you please offer me a couple of the systems you were describing earlier (see me post at 11), I would really like to study there physical characteristics. Thanks.Upright BiPed
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
Dr Liddle, you once again, just in the past 48 hours restated that DNA is not properly decribed as a digital system. A couple of months ago KF and I spent several posts trying to get you to understand the idea that DNA is base-four digital. Yet, you instead keep returning to the errant idea that the base has something to do with what the coding system is describing (phenotypic, etc), as oppossed to being the number of individual characters within the encoding system that can occupy any position in the code). "A remarkable feature of the structure is that DNA can accommodate almost any sequence of base pairs—any combination of the bases adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T)—and, hence any digital message or information." -Biologist, Leroy Hood and David Galas PhD: "The Digital Code of DNA"Upright BiPed
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
KF, you've linked to a 228 page book. Obviously I'd have read it first to have an opinion on it ... give me 10 minutes and I'll get back to you ;-) But seriously I would have to read it and then probably many additional references before formulating even a partly informed (hopefully) opinion because as I said, there are no shortcuts. In the meantime I'll spare you what would be my otherwise ignorant opinion.NormO
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
oh, for goodness' sake, guys! I left out the DNA part simply because I was using the definition, not the example they gave of usage! Sheesh, I chose the definition because it's the one that applies to DNA!!!!! And I'd actually quoted it in full here!!!! This conversation started on the Ink and Hardware thread, where I gave the M-W definition in full, in a response to Eugene, which he responded to, so I assume he read it. So what on earth makes either of you think I wanted to hide it????! Look, Eugene gave a definition of "self-organisation" as: "Self-organisation is an alleged spontaneous formation of [an information] system. Is that a good enough definition? " then asked "Or do you also want to have a definition of an information system?" So I substituted for "information system" a definition of an information system based on the M-W definition, giving: “The spontaneous formation of a system in which the attributes inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something produce specific effects.” It wasn't supposed to be a quote (let alone a "quote-mine") from the M-W but a description of an information system based on the M-W definition of information. As for "gets queasie about recognising DNA is a base-four digital encoding system", I don't get "queasie" at all. I just think it's a really really bad analog. The base is only a switching unit at the level of the population for a start, not at the level of the organism (and not really base four even then, more alphabetic). At the level of the organism, the switching unit is the gene not the base. But you know this UBP, because I've explained it several times. Feel free to disagree, but I'd be grateful if you did not ascribe queasieness where no queasieness is. Also, I think you both owe me an apology, for jumping to the inference that I was attempting to hide the full M-W definition when I'd actually given it myself at the start of the whole conversation! Yet again, I repeat my request: please do me the courtesy of assuming I am posting in good faith, because I am. It is an assumption I make about virtually everyone else, and the people I don't assume it of, I only drop the assumption based on copious evidence. And that applies to no-one here.Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
KF, "The cell looks irreducibly complex in many ways." Absolutely no doubt about it.Eugene S
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
F/N: Oddly, the very first technical design theory book was by a Chemist, a Polymer specialist and a Geologist, looking at the origin of life from the ground up. Norm, can you tell us what fundamentally is wrong with the thermodynamics and environmental consideration issues here, as a baseline?kairosfocus
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
Actually, I must say I do not agree with the wiki on the example given of the information processing systems. To be honest, I gave it a full read after I posted ;( While the definition given is correct, the interpretation is not. E.g. they consider a rock orbiting the earth and the earth itself an information processing system, which is bizarre to me because without an observer it does not make a lot of sense. However in the interpretation part they do say "it can be argued".Eugene S
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
P No expert is better than his facts, logic and underlying assumptions, which is one reason why the a priori materialism of Lewontin et al is so corrosive. That context is also an extra reason why appeals to modesty in the face of claimed authority are less than impressive. Newton and Einstein triumphed because they showed an explanation that worked and which predicted the unexpected accurately. So, the first requisite is to demonstrate. Then discuss how this may have happened in the remote past in a plausible prelife environment. Until that is done, we have speculation driven by a priori materialism, pushed in the back door by so called methodological naturalism. In this particular area, the only definitive answer from the chem evo side is going to be an actual demonstration. And, given the issues like the ones raised by not only IVV but field leaders like Orgel and Shapiro, that is going to be hard to do indeed. Remember, you have to show the rise of self-replicating cell based life from reasonable chemicals in a reasonable environment without undue interference. It is no accident that the closest we have yet come is an exercise in genetic engineering by Venter which is proof of concept that cell based life can be engineered. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply