Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Death Knell for Life from an RNA world

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The RNA world hypothesis, to be true, has to overcome  major hurdles:

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2024-the-rna-world-and-the-origins-of-life#3414

1. Life uses only right-handed RNA and DNA. The homochirality problem is unsolved. This is an “intractable problem” for chemical evolution
2. RNA has been called a “prebiotic chemist’s nightmare” because of its combination of large size, carbohydrate building blocks, bonds that are thermodynamically unstable in water, and overall intrinsic instability. Many bonds in RNA are thermodynamically unstable with respect to hydrolysis in water, creating a “water problem”. Finally, some bonds in RNA appear to be “impossible” to form under any conditions considered plausible for early Earth.   In chemistry, when free energy is applied to organic matter without Darwinian evolution, the matter devolves to become more and more “asphaltic”, as the atoms in the mixture are rearranged to give ever more molecular species. In the resulting “asphaltization”, what was life comes to display fewer and fewer characteristics of life.
3. Systems of interconnected software and hardware like in the cell are irreducibly complex and interdependent. There is no reason for information processing machinery to exist without the software and vice versa.
4. A certain minimum level of complexity is required to make self-replication possible at all; high-fidelity replication requires additional functionalities that need even more information to be encoded
5. RNA catalysts would have had to copy multiple sets of RNA blueprints nearly as accurately as do modern-day enzymes
6. In order a molecule to be a self-replicator, it has to be a homopolymer, of which the backbone must have the same repetitive units; they must be identical. In the prebiotic world, the generation of a homopolymer was however impossible.
7. Not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (10^24) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences.  
8. Over time, organic molecules break apart as fast as they form
9. How could and would random events attach a phosphate group to the right position of a ribose molecule to provide the necessary chemical activity? And how would non-guided random events be able to attach the nucleic bases to the ribose?  The coupling of ribose with a nucleotide is the first step to form RNA, and even those engrossed in prebiotic research have difficulty envisioning that process, especially for purines and pyrimidines.”
10. L. E. Orgel:  The myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist’s view of RNA’s catalytic potential.
11. Macromolecules do not spontaneously combine to form macromolecules
125. The transition from RNA to DNA is an unsolved problem. 
13. To go from a self-replicating RNA molecule to a self-replicating cell is like to go from a house building block to a fully built house. 
14. Arguably one of the most outstanding problems in understanding the progress of early life is the transition from the RNA world to the modern protein-based world. 31
15. It is thought that the boron minerals needed to form RNA from pre-biotic soups were not available on early Earth in sufficient quantity, and the molybdenum minerals were not available in the correct chemical form. 33
16. Given the apparent limitation of double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) genomes to about 30 kb, together with the complexity of DNA synthesis, it appears dif¢cult for a dsRNA genome to encode all the information required before the transition from an RNA to a DNA genome. Ribonucleotide reductase itself, which synthesizes deoxyribonucleotides from ribonucleotides, requires complex protein radical chemistry, and RNA world genomes may have reached their limits of coding capacity well before such complex enzymes had evolved.

Comments
Seversky
One question is why some people believe Tour without question but dismiss three other equally if not more competent authorities who disagree with him?
Who decides who is more competent ? You ? Fortunately, this OoL-chemistry seem to be so straight forward, that you don't have to be a big expert to see OoL-research fraud .... unlike Darwinian theory of evolution ... there I see way more space where you can cheat ....martin_r
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Seversky, just for you, it is very short ... A proof that first two Farina's experts agreed with Tour: Bruce Lipshutz ( from an email communication with Tour) https://youtu.be/t5PfBzQUjW8?t=1149 Lee Cronin ( a chunk from an older online debate) https://www.youtube.com/shorts/J0mhyqjpQWg and actually, the 3rd one, Steve Benner agreed with Tour as well https://youtu.be/ZtitTE2BavU?t=1314martin_r
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Seversky as BA77 pointed out, you obviously don't watch Dr. Tour's videos. If you would, you would learn, that those 3 experts agreed with Tour and "professor" Farina looks like a silly 5 years old child ... Not to mention, that the 2nd expert (Bruce Lipshutz) did not even know that he was brought into this discussion :))))) Small correction, for the accuracy, so far only first two experts agreed, let's see what will the 3rd expert (Benner) say, because the part 01 with Benner was released just yesterday. So far, Benner just attacked Tour (God of the gaps argument), no science presented so far. So let's see what Benner has to say :))))) But what could he possibly say ? :)))) The whole OoL-research is a fraud. That is clear from very first lectures ... PS: We can't expect that people like Seversky, CD, JVL and Co. would listen to Dr. Tour. That is alright. We have to wait another 200 years, and Darwinists will be exactly where they are today with the research. That's for sure ... perhaps then the mainstream journals will admit that the OoL-research is a huge fiasco ...(it is already).martin_r
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
Seversky apparently you are not even watching the videos. The "three other equally if not more competent authorities" agree with Dr. Tour, not Dave, on the chemistry.bornagain77
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
One question is why some people believe Tour without question but dismiss three other equally if not more competent authorities who disagree with him? The second question is if Tour believes he has genuine scientific objections to current OOL research why is he publishing it on YouTube rather than scientific journals? That's not where you do science. The third question is that if OOL research is such a bust does Tour have a better alternative explanation of how this designer/superintellect/God did it? There are some inquiring minds here who would like to know.Seversky
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
BA and MR re: Tour: Just watched the latest episode. I am enjoying these immensely. Too bad that the truth has 50k subscribers, while the real liar has more than 2M. Tour and his producers are having to do a lot of work to point out the truth, while Dave can just spew lies to his disciples and has a lot more views. But, Dave is inadvertently giving Tour much more exposure by ridiculing him, which I suppose is a good thing. Frustrating that Benner uses the word miracle instead of intelligent agency, which is what they cannot and dare not posit. I suppose that's intentional. It's so obvious that a superintellect is behind life, yet they're committed to never, ever admitting that, even if that alone doesn't get you to the Christian God. Lewontin et al.AnimatedDust
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
Correction The Jeremy England link above is wrong, this is the correct one https://www.yalescientific.org/2014/07/origins-of-life-a-means-to-a-thermodynamically-favorable-end/martin_r
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
Latermarch, Like I said, these well educated people, scientists, believe in 19th century sponaneus generation of life theory. Look at this guy…..MIT physicist Jeremy England, quote:
You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/science-mag-explains-why-we-need-junk-dna/
So when you see something like that, what then to expect from lay people …. e.g from Seversky ? …. But Seversky is the lucky one, because he visits this blog…. he got schooled…. So hopefully he no longer believes this nonsense….. or am I naive ? :))))) PS: Actually, your astrobiologist is right … you can’t have a RNA molecule in water…. water degrades RNA molecules …. Let’s hope he is aware of this fact ….martin_r
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
Martin_r @3 Astrobiologist: "Here, hold my beer. We don't even need RNA...just water."Latemarch
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
Martin_r, Moreover, these, (ahem, less than forthright), OoL-researchers act as if invoking Intelligence, and especially invoking God, is somehow antithetical to science itself. In other words, they presuppose atheistic (methodological) naturalism to be true and act as if God is somehow contrary to the practice of modern science. Yet, you can't even do science in the first place without presupposing some basic Judeo-Christian presuppositions to be true. Mainly, that the universe is intelligible and orderly. As Paul Davies noted, "even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”
Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995 Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.” https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24
And as Stephen Meyer has pointed out in his book "Return of the God Hypothesis", Modern science was born out of, and is STILL very much dependent on basic Judeo-Christian presuppositions.
“Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”. – Ian Barbour Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,, “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.” Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism), “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts” – Johannes Kepler Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” (Francis Bacon’s championing of inductive reasoning over and above the deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks) – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA
In short, not only does science NOT preclude God from being a valid explanation in science, but science itself would not even be possible in the first place unless God was first presupposed as being the true explanation for the universe and for our life, especially for our ability to comprehend the universe. Thus, atheistic scientists may mock and ridicule belief in God as being 'silly', but they themselves, in the very act of them practicing science, are crucially dependent on that 'silly' belief that God created an rational universe and gave us the capacity to understand that rationality. You simply can't do science otherwise.
Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.theistic.net/papers/R.Koons/Koons-science.pdf Rob Koons is a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. With degrees from Michigan State, Oxford, and UCLA, he specializes in metaphysics and philosophical logic, with special interest in philosophical theology and the foundations of both science and ethics.
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.
bornagain77
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT
BA77, this series is simply amazing. Not only is Dr. Tour a top scientist (in 2020 he became a member of Royal Society - the oldest scientific organization in the world) but he is also an excellent presenter. I especially like his sarcasm. Most people don't appreciate what he is doing for us. In the most recent video, he is addressing OoL-researcher Steve Benner ... This Benner, such an arrogant person ... and a liar ... What is shocking, all these OoL-researchers making an impression that they are close to creating life in lab ... the fact is, they haven't made any progress at all ... in their whole career !!!! ... they virtually have NOTHING ... they only wasted other people money ... but their self-confidence is really shocking ... it is unbelievable ... I really don't understand how can anyone still fund these people ... they are totally useless ... Of course, one reason why they are useless is the fact, that they think that life emerged in some chemical pond. This is the main reason for their failure. Another reason is the self-deception ... It is really shocking, that these well educated people seriously think, that they can create the most advanced self-replicating technology on earth by heating/cooling/shaking flasks ... it is like in some mental hospital ... they seriously seem to believe in 19th century spontaneous generation theory. (or, they just trying to trick investors to get more funding ... this is easy money ... I think I will become a OoL-research too ... )martin_r
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT
Semi off topic: Uploaded last night
Episode 6: Dr. Tour UNMASKS Double-Standards & Inaccurate Commentary - Steve Benner, Part 01 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtitTE2BavU
Previous episodes
Episode 1: Dave Farina’s “Experts” completely DEBUNKED. The Religion of Prebiotic Soup - Lee Cronin Part 01 https://youtu.be/4rwPi1miWu4 Episode 2: Dr. Tour DISSECTS Chemistry of an ‘Expert’ on Origin of Life - Lee Cronin, Part 02 https://youtu.be/aUOZh4zmrXo Episode 3: Dr. Tour BURSTS Oil Bubble Chemistry and More - Lee Cronin, Part 03 https://youtu.be/v3A8_ezYlZY Episode 4: Dr. Tour DROWNS Religion of Unprotected Side-Chains in Water - Bruce Lipshutz, Part 01 https://youtu.be/N_on6LK6Etc Episode 5: Dr. Tour EXPOSES Troll Behavior & Forgives Chemist in the Crossfire - Bruce Lipshutz, Part 02 https://youtu.be/t5PfBzQUjW8 Episode 7 premieres next Monday, January 16th!
bornagain77
January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT
In 2017, Berkeley, in its Origin of Life page, waxed confidently about the RNA world providing a bridge to life from rocks; the article was replaced in 2022 and the RNA world was simply let fall without explanation. It is passé, but then it always was a mirage. There is zero record of an RNA organism having appeared anywhere and, today, the RNA World is like King Solomon’s Mines. Meanwhile, the visualised “protocell” stands at the head of the unicorn, the mermaid, and the werewolf as the most mythical creature of all. In short, no bridge, no link, no path, no tie, no half-way house, between a rock and a living organism has ever been observed in the fossil record, nor made in a laboratory.Belfast
January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT
1 4 5 6

Leave a Reply