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
They are not a set of requirements for “self-sustaining, self-replicating molecule based cellular life”.
You don't know what the requirements for “self-sustaining, self-replicating molecule based cellular life" And of course OoL researchers say the first cells were more simpl,e- they HAVE to say that.Joseph
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
Elizabeth:
No, the question is: what could you add to the simplest possible self-replicator to produce a modern cell?
Everything a modern cell has, including software.Joseph
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
No, they don't, kf. They lay out requisites for a modern-type cell. They are not a set of requirements for "self-sustaining, self-replicating molecule based cellular life". Or at least, we do not know that they are. The OOL researchers'case is that they are not: that the minimal requirements are much simpler.Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
markf: > I guess the ID community is going > to steer clear of whose requirements... I would say the requirements are nature's requirements -- those things that the laws of physics demand that a cell must be, and must do, for viability and reproducibility. But that, of course, begs the question: Why is nature so law-bound and orderly? Nature's orderliness is what makes life possible. To exploit that orderliness, and to be a viable organism, the cell must adhere, within fairly strict bounds, to nature's "house rules". Where did nature's law-boundedness and orderliness originate? You can only evade the elephant in the room (intelligence) for so long. Kent Omaha, Nebraska, USAkdonnelly
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
Well, do read Szostak's work. He actually does deal with these issues.Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
The cognitive bias in biological reserach today, and especially in the interpretation of data, is terrifying. All the essential rules of good reasoning and empiricism are violated.
I disagree, which was why I asked for support for the allegation! Can you support it?Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT
If we had the imaginary “simple” self-replicator, then we could discuss, and experiment, about adding to it.
Which is exactly what Szostak's lab is working on!Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
MF: The requirements at the top of this thread lay out requisites for self-sustaining self-replicating molecule based cellular life. They are constrained by the requisites of metabolic, self-replicating, encapsulated entities that have specific molecular reactions, many of which are endothermic. Let's just say, there is a reason why the cells we actually observe have such a carefully co-ordinated structure to keep things going. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT
prezactlykairosfocus
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
Actually, Dr Liddle, the support is here, in the UD current post where we await your response on the 14 points of concern. Remember, it is not just Lewontin but the majority of the elites, including those who intervened in Kansas -- US NAS, NSTA issued a joint letter of threat, the NCSE orchestrating a media slander campaign through its local arm, the media who enthusiastically came along for the ride, and many more . . . -- and those who stood by and let it happen. The silence in the face of a priori materialist censorship, manipulation of the very definition of science in the teeth of relevant phil and history and improperly holding the children of that state hostage was deafening. What we heard loud and clear was a media lynching of those who dared to speak up. We await your response to the 14 points of concern. Perhaps that will set our minds at ease. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT
I fully concur with IVV. To be a viable cell, there must be: 1: First and foremost, controlled energy and materials flow through, to provide the requirements for doing work to operate life, and to exhaust waste materials and energy. (This is actually rooted in thermodynamics and is a very rigorous requirement.) 2: This requires a controlled membrane with energy and/or materials ports for input and output. 3: Assuming aqueous medium and a single cell, waste heat can be informally got rid of by thermal conduction. Waste materials are another story. 4: Energy inflow -- most life-relevant reactions to build up components and to build up macromolecules are highly endothermic -- will be a major challenge, given the issue of the complexity of photosynthesis and the challenge that poisons basically work by interfering with reaction chains. (Energy can come in in the form of chemicals.) Note, too the role of ATP and ATP Synthase in OBSERVED life. 5: Within the cell we have a need for anabolic and catabolic processes to build up tear down and then get rid of waste products. Controlled metabolism. 6: 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. 7: Self-replication then caps off, even if we do not require the full observed von Neumann self replicator. Dr Liddle and others think this is the sole minimal requirement, but just think about what is required to maintain an internal environment in which a cell can carry out replication. That will bring us back to controlled i/o ports for energy and materials, and controlled metabolic pathways. 8: Maybe, the membrane is not needed? Then, you have open access by interfering chemicals, whether on clay beds or in warm little ponds or volcanic vents etc. _________ The "simple" cell ain't. Simple. The cell manifests both Wicken wiring diagram functionally specific complex organisation and evident irreducible complexity in several ways. The only known way to meet complex functionally specific organisation and information requirements like this? Design. If you object to this conclusion, then the onus is on you to show, analytically and preferably empirically, that something simpler will do and would emerge in a realistic prebiotic environment. The absence of the celebratory Nobel Prize for this achievement should tell us that there is a huge gap in the heart of this field, and of course that means the Darwinian tree of life has no tap-root so no basis, as was pointed out at UD recently. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
This post has a premise that a cell is responding to a set of requirements. It makes no sense to talk about requirements unless you can say whose requirements or requirements to do something. I guess the ID community is going to steer clear of whose requirements - so maybe someone can say what the requirements are for?markf
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT
gpuccio "Simple" is not the same as "easy to create" or "easy to determine what it is". For example, a superconductor is not complicated but it is really hard to make one and 100 years ago it would have been almost impossible to guess how to make one.markf
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT
Finally, a simple question: if that first replicator was really so simple, why hasn't anyone produced some example of it in the lab? Then we could reason with something observable, and try to describe some model of evolution of that "simple" replicator to a prokaryote. Just as a reminder, let's reflect that we cannot produce in the lab even a prokaryiote, even having all the single parts already available. Oh, but I was forgetting that electricity in a pond can certainly perform miracles...gpuccio
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT
Well, I would not understate the "metabolism" aspect of the first reproductors. We must remember that complex molecules are built at the expense of outer energy, and that uusally that energy comes from other complex molecules, or from light through other complex molecules in phtosynthesis. As the electric discharge in a primitive pond is obviously a ridiculous myth (I suppose all agree on that now), I think we should really ask ourselves how the supposed "simple" replicator obtained and controlled the energy necessary for its life.gpuccio
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT
Elizabeth: The allegations are serious, but essentially correct. The cognitive bias in biological reserach today, and especially in the interpretation of data, is terrifying. All the essential rules of good reasoning and empiricism are violated.gpuccio
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT
Elizabeth: No, the question is: what could you add to the simplest possible self-replicator to produce a modern cell? Trying to do it backwards is silly. What seems silly is to discuus adding to something that does not exist. If we had the imaginary "simple" self-replicator, then we could discuss, and experiment, about adding to it. But that "simple" self replicator is nowhere to be seen, except in the wishful thinking of darwinists. So, all rules of empiricism are inverted, to defend a theory that does not work.gpuccio
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT
You mean, what would blind undirected unguided forces without biased purposed goal driven thoughts of a scientists mind, don’t you ???
Well that bears no resemblance to what I meant, and actually doesn't appear to mean anything at all! Perhaps you mistyped?Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
01:21 AM
1
01
21
AM
PDT
Well, those are serious allegations, Eocene. Please support them.Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT
No, the whole point of the research is proving "NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED" and thus far they continue to fail. Lying , cheating and stealing I.D. concepts and attaching evolutionary signage/baggage to them doesn't exactly go along way in proving the worldview which is really what all of this is about anyway.Eocene
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT
You mean, what would blind undirected unguided forces without biased purposed goal driven thoughts of a scientists mind, don't you ??? Unfortunately these intelligent minds have no clue as to what the simplest cell would even look like. Although they continue using their collective intelligences in experimenting as to just what a Creator would or wouldn't do. Sorry, I meant blind undirected forces , not Creator.Eocene
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT
No, we don't know this. That's the Whole Point of the research.Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
12:47 AM
12
12
47
AM
PDT
No, the question is: what could you add to the simplest possible self-replicator to produce a modern cell? Trying to do it backwards is silly.Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT
Well, try reading Szostak's work. The important question is "what is needed for the simplest possible Darwinian-capable self-replicator", which, Szostak suggests, is a membrane vesicle that encloses self-replicating polymers, where the confirguration of the polymers affects the probability of the whole self-replication. In other words something a little bit like the basics of a cell: a lipid vesicle containing genetic material that is passed on to the "progeny" when the vesicle divides.Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT
Actually the question should be, "What information would you remove for a cell?" If I remember properly, scientists in a cell repair mechanism experiment destroyed or removed from the cell pieces or portions of DNA and watched it repair itself time and again. They eventually went to far in the amount removed and the cell activated it's own "Kill Switch".Eocene
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT
Which requirements would you remove for a simple cell?Dala
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT
Elizabeth: “No, Barry, that’s the requirement for quite a complex cell. Szostak is talking about a simple cell.” Elizabeth, would you be so kind to try to enumerate (using the numbering in the original post) which of the listed requirements are those for a complex cell, i.e. NOT needed for the simplest cell? I anticipated that some of the listed requirements may not be needed by the Simplest cell by using the “should/may” formulation rather than “must” formulation. However, even some requirements listed with the ”should/may” formulation could be moved in the “must” category after some debate/analysis.InVivoVeritas
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT
But why kill the dream of dreamers? Ok we know it's impossible to achieve this machinery by natural processes (if we consider Intellect not very natural process). But when one tries to build perpetuma mobile, there is allways chances he will stumble upon nice good construction of convinient engine. So... even if guys never will achieve their dream, it is very likely that during their research they will gather couple of Nobel prises anyway by discovering/inventing stuff which is usefull by itself.Shazard
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT
No, Barry, that's the requirement for quite a complex cell. Szostak is talking about a simple cell. And he has already met some of those requirements.Elizabeth Liddle
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT
Szostak: "The part we’ve come to understand reasonably well is the membrane part." Well, this may be true if he is just talking about a basic understanding what is needed for a functional membrane, but if his statement is meant to give the impression -- which it appears to be -- that getting a functional membrane through naturalistic processes is understood reasonably well, then he is pushing nonsense. Based on his paper we were discussing and his work I think his interest lies primarily with the RNA replication, so perhaps it is somewhat understandable that he glosses over the membrane part, although he should know better. Further, beyond a relatively detailed list of basic requirements for a membrane, we aren't even close to being able to build one. If you don't know what is required to build one, then you don't really understand it. InVivoVeritas puts together a fantastic initial list of minimum requirements. I've tried putting together a list of minimum requirements myself a while back and it got pretty long. This is why it is critical to have an engineering eye look at these things. Too many true believers gloss over the details and proclaim they are close to a solution when an engineering analysis reveals the proposed pathway or proposed mechanism being offered is simply not workable in the real world or is so general and vague as to be useless for anything other than a just-so story.Eric Anderson
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply