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
I have read it, Eugene (several times in fact). I can find no definition, despite the fact that Abel repeatedly says how important it is to have one, and castigates others for not defining it properly. Yes, I think we need a definition of an information system, though I am happy to use Merriam-Webster's 2b definition of information. So we would have something like: "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." Would that do?Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
In addition to 8.1.1.1-2 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_processor for a definition of a system processing system. The onus is on those who claim that systems such as those can/could emerge by themselves (by fluke or necessity), to provide at least one demonstrable example.Eugene S
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
If something that reflects Wicken wiring diagram organisation [as opposed to crystal-like order] was not built by external forces, it had to self-assemble, spontaneously. Self-organisation is a descriptive term, not a mystery that needs major definition. (Cf Orgel and Wicken here for basic information from the 1970's.)kairosfocus
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
Self-organisation is an alleged spontaneous formation of such a system. Is that a good enough definition? Or do you also want to have a definition of an information system?Eugene S
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, I have cited a paper by David Abel. There is an attempt to give that definition there, you might want to read it first.Eugene S
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
F/N: TMLO is a good place to begin looking at those issues. (No prizes for guessing why it is the first technical design theory book.)kairosfocus
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
And, the energetics point straight to the complexities as highlighted.kairosfocus
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Well it seems all you have are promissory notes. That said when a RAM gets information it does not change the component. When information is put on a piece of paper the molecular structure of the paper does not change.Joseph
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
Well, let's have that operational definition of "self-organisation". The onus is on you to provide that :)Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle: Right now the evidence is that the irrationality in power is a priori materialism. And, the careers being busted and the people whose children are being held hostage, are those who dare question the new materialist magisterium in the holy lab coat. So, sorry, trying to spread blame "equally" is not responding to the spirit of the age challenge. There is a power that needs truth spoken to it, so let us move away from the tactics of blaming the victim. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
Well, time will tell. Now, are you going to tell me how you put information on/in a molecule without changing it?Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
"I hope no-one is going to suggest that the Second Law precludes Life???" True, local perturbations may occur that make possible negative entropy differences at the cost of entropy growing overall. An example is the chemical clock or crystallisation. However, as you say, there is an explanatory gap we need to close, of going from self-ordering like this to genuine self-organisation in the sense of spontaneous formation of information systems. No examples are known today of anything like the latter. The onus is therefore on those who claim it is plausible to present a relevant proof.Eugene S
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
It would be awesome- it would also be awesome if my 9 year old could slam-dunk a basketball- or throw a 99 mph fastball, but that ain't happenin' either...Joseph
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
I'm a software engineer too. And a sometime biochemist. I think the problem has been over-specified - we aren't looking for 'big-bang', but phased implementation! I'd argue the minimal Day 1 requirement is a source of energy. Life is fundamentally based upon tapping the free energy from electrons as they 'fall' from electron donors to electron acceptors, whether excited by sunlight or simply existing in a donor. The energy released can do work - chemical or mechanical. Without that ability to do work, the Second Law of Thermodynamics bites us in the backside and degrades any putative replicator (I hope no-one is going to suggest that the Second Law precludes Life???). This isn't Life, of course, or anything like it. But if there is a tappable source of 'free energy' (and I don't mean that it costs nothing!), then that can do work against the tendency to entropy. I am obviously not about to supply details of the leap from energy to self-replicating molecules - that would be a Nobel-winning piece of work! - but I would point out the deep biochemical connection between 'informational' molecules - nucleic acids - and 'energetic' ones - ATP, NAD, FAD. Every single one of these has an adenine-ribose-phosphate moiety. In RNA/DNA, it is simply one of the four 'base' subunits, the "A" of the genetic code, but the energy of its polymerisation derives from exactly the same reaction - phosphate cleavage - as is involved cell-wide in almost every reaction requiring energy input. Modern cells make most of their ATP at membranes, which forms an interesting little loop, if membranes are indeed necessary to charge it from scratch. Energy at membranes is generated by pumped storage of protons across the membrane, creating a tappable gradient. This gives an interesting potential - and I'm only saying potential - for a very simple 2-part system: membranes and replicating molecules, the latter 'feeding' upon the free energy generated across the first, charging energetic, stackable triphosphates. Nothing else in the list is strictly necessary as a first requirement.Chas D
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
3.1.1.2.1 As per irrationality on both sides, while I agree in principle, my personal estimation of percentage thereof is I am afraid not in favour of "naturalists", for want of a better word, advocating against "the Divine foot in the door". It is not a fair pitch. Just my personal feel.Eugene S
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
Well, that's fair enough, Joseph. But I think I'll put my money on a simple spontaneously self-replicating and evolving system in my life-time :) That would be awesome.Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
Well we already know Joyce's experiment didn't do that- produce a self-replicator capable of darwinian evolution. My bet is we don't get that until we have bonafied living organisms.Joseph
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
We await your response to the 14 points of concern. Perhaps that will set our minds at ease.
Probably not, but I do have a draft!Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
But, when one is caught up in the party-spiritedness of an age, it is hard indeed to see the wrongs being done.
Yes, indeed, kf. And I do think there is irrational paranoia on both sides. I think it's a major part of the problem.Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
Yes the energetics are important, kf. That's why the people conducting this research are chemists.Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
The hypothesise it, Joseph, and conduct experiments to find out just how simple the first Darwinian-capable self-replicator might have been.Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
IOW, the strike anywhere matches and rats scenario. Rats spontaneously cause the matches to set the forest on fire. No human intervention apart from the matches...Eugene S
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
What about metabolism instead of just vague energy requirement? I.e. something that regulates energy intake, processing and discharge? It is a horrendously complex task.Eugene S
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
"Then, the cell indeed has to sense and respond to its environment, moving to better locations and away from worse ones. Sensing, processing, responding, motility." That is a feature not even all modern cells have! We could reduce this list to: membrane (semi-permeable by its own properties), genome (or a set of self or mutually replicating polymers), energy.DrREC
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
Not yet known in details but plainly HUGELY complex. Think about what is required to make a heart or liver transplant work.kairosfocus
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle: I must seriously disagree. Once you have encapsulation, to protect an environment for required reactions, all else follows on the energetics and related considerations. Where, if you do not have encapsulation, you have breakdown of a process that requires protection and controlled energy and material inflows and outflows to work. That's a dilemma for those who pose the idea of spontaneous origin of life, but that does not mean the dilemma is not real. Why not break the dilemma if you can, addressing the underlying thermodynamic and hostile external environment concerns that drive it. Remember, the key reactions to build up the sort of complex molecules involved, are going to as a rule be endothermic and subject to interference by cross reactions, many of which would break down the processes. Indeed by the very fact of endothermicity, the breakdown reactions tend to be more energetically favourable, i.e release energy and simplify composition. (Notice how dried organic materials burn? They release energy on oxidation and breakdown into simpler components.) What may stabilise is high activation energies [metastability protected by a high energy barrier to break down], but then that puts in high energy walls to be surmounted to build the complex molecules. And enzymes in many cases are there precisely to get around high energy of activation hills. Enzymes being very complex proteins. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
It would be interesting to me to see requirements specifications (and interface specifcations) for every organ in the human body.fmarotta
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
InVivoVeritas: Thanks for an interesting post. As you're probably aware, there is a well-known phenomenon in software development called the "requirements explosion". It's documented, for example, in Robert Glass's book, Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering. Even after a specification is complete, and especially as concrete implementation of the specification gets underway (i.e. development of the actual software begins), a plethora of other requirements come out of the woodwork. Several things might account for this, including (1) the requirements were probably incomplete to begin with; (2) not all the implications of the requirements were thought through in advance; (3) the stakeholders don't like what the "incarnation" of their specifications in functional software actually looks like, or behaves like; etc. I observe a similar phenomena in the ongoing naturalistic-macroevolution vs. ID debate. The analogy is imperfect, but it seems to me that scientists (ironically, primarily evolutionists) are presiding over an exponential "requirements explosion" of their own creation. The more they drill down into the nitty-gritty details of life, the more strictly bounded and detailed the specifications for viable life become. And, on purely naturalistic grounds, scientists seem less and less able to account for life's successful implementation(s) of those increasingly complex and demanding specifications. Kent Omaha, Nebraska, USAkdonnelly
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
Sadly, his minimal requirements as are being highlighted just now duck this vital issue.kairosfocus
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
Eo: Pardon, but while the underlying issues you raise are well warranted, some of your language is intemperate. Please moderate tone, words and implications of widespread conscious dishonesty. Yes, there is censorship, there is unjust career busting, there is a twisting of definitions and the structure of science in agenda-serving ways, but most -- the vast majority -- of those doing things that in the cold light of days to come will be seen as inexcusable, are caught up in the spirit of our age and are blind to the cold import of what is going on. It SEEMS to those caught up that those Bible-thumping fundies are the real threat and we must take all steps necessary to block those destructive theocrats, and it seems that those dumb and dishonest Creationists -- including the ones hiding in cheap tuxedos -- are trying to seize control of Science and pushing "pseudoscience" in by the back door. So, freedom must be defended from the theocrats -- how dare they insist that marriage can only be between a man and a woman! and the nerve of having coffee shops in Blackpool with TVs showing scripture readings . . . it's hate speech; let's call the police under the Public Order Act. (This is an actual recent incident.) Likewise, how dare those ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked creationists demand that we replace the proper definition of science:
KS, 2001:“Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations of the world around us.”
. . . with something so obviously loaded with Creationist rubbish and hidden agendas:
KS, 2005:“Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.
(This, again is an actual incident. The 2005 definition is more or less the traditional school level definition that -- complete with issues on provisionality and progress -- traces back to Newton in Query 31, Opticks. The 2001 definition preloads science with naturalism, i.e. evolutionary materialism, thus begging major questions and breaking down the integrity of science as an objective search for the truth about our cosmos based on empirical evidence, analysis and reasoned discussion.) of course in a day not many years hence, all of that will be seen for what it is: the blinding hysteria of our day, wherein judgements have been warped by reckless -- and in some few cases willfully malicious -- talking points and manipulative arguments. But, when one is caught up in the party-spiritedness of an age, it is hard indeed to see the wrongs being done. (Think about why it took 50 years of hard campaigning and one final slave rebellion that exposed the temper of those who suppressed it when they burned down dissenter chapels and tried to hang dissenter missionaries to break the stranglehold of slavery. And yet, to our eyes, such race based chattel slavery seems obviously wrong. Never mind that we have a lot of implicit debt servitude in our day . . . ) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply