We are told: The recipe for the origin of life has been revised

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 29, 2020

Intelligent Design, Origin Of Life}

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

The proposed revision is a tweak on RNA world:

Recently, Nobel laureate Jack Szostak’s lab made serious headway in answering the life origin question by publishing the first recipe for making a spontaneously self-reproducing gene in a 2020 Journal of the American Chemical Society paper…
These observations together point to a chemically functional role of ANAs [arabinonucleic acids] that would significantly increase the rate of RNA synthesis and stability in the environment of a primordial Earth. Szostak’s unusual addition to his recipe likely became the “secret ingredient” to making the most plausible RNA-filled gazpacho to date. And with that, the scientific debate around the origins of life on Earth keeps on simmering.
Lauren Gandy, “Scientists have revised the recipe for the first gene and the origin of life” at Massive Science

Scientists revising their origin of life theories is—in the present climate—somewhat like fiction writers revising their novels. Nothing in the world wrong with it. But let’s be clear what level of real-world information we are talking about.

See also: Astonishing! Astrophysicist determines that the odds are against a random origin of life. One might ask why he thinks that “science” must find a random origin for life. Who decided that life originated randomly? What if it did not? Is science still committed to finding a random origin?

and

Welcome to “RNA world,” the five-star hotel of origin-of-life theories

Comments

Kairosfocus: you weren’t born yesterday and neither were we. Yeah, I am getting on a bit. You full well know that say detection of accelerants points to arson without knowing more than that arson is possible. That twerdun is antecedent to whodunit, how. And on the material issue, it is decisive. Life builds in coded, alphanumeric, algorithmic — thus linguistic and purposeful — information. The import of which is effectively decisive. That for the moment we may or may not be able to infer from evidence in hand who did it, when, where, how is irrelevant to that. But then, you long since know that one bird in hand is worth a flock out in the bush somewhere. The continued refusal to deal with a material finding itself tells us all we need to know. I don't get the term "twerdun" ("it were done"?) but I do get your basic drift of course. Look, I just asked Upright BiPed a question. He (?) chooses not to answer it. That's fine. He was clear he didn't want to answer it and I appreciate the honesty. I will try and remember where his (?) no-go areas are and not waste his (?) time asking the same question again.JVL_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

BA
Wow, even as I was typing my last, EG comes in with his own turnabout accusation.
He claimed that “a living thing must be specified among alternatives in order to exist” so I asked him why that was a requirement. His non-response was “rope-a-dope”. But given that you don’t understand the concept of quote-mining a sentence out of context, it shouldn’t surprise me that you also can’t distinguish between a justified turnabout accusation (ie, pointing out someone’s hypocrisy) and an unjustified turnabout accusation. Ed out.Ed George_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

JVL, you weren't born yesterday and neither were we. You full well know that say detection of accelerants points to arson without knowing more than that arson is possible. That twerdun is antecedent to whodunit, how. And on the material issue, it is decisive. Life builds in coded, alphanumeric, algorithmic -- thus linguistic and purposeful -- information. The import of which is effectively decisive. That for the moment we may or may not be able to infer from evidence in hand who did it, when, where, how is irrelevant to that. But then, you long since know that one bird in hand is worth a flock out in the bush somewhere. The continued refusal to deal with a material finding itself tells us all we need to know. KFkairosfocus_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington: And now the inevitable turnabout accusation. Does it every get old being a cliche? No, no accusation. I proposed a question and Upright BiPed has chosen not to address it. I'm good. Wow, even as I was typing my last, EG comes in with his own turnabout accusation. Well, UB, while you will never get the satisfaction of getting JVL or EG to expressly admit they have nothing, their continual evasions have certainly given you the functional equivalent. Like I said: I asked a question and was told that no answer was coming. I appreciate the clarity and honesty in that. I think we're done now.JVL_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: it was a mistake if you believed your approach here was somehow novel, perhaps, obviously, you’ve placed too much confidence in your ability to sashay around the evidence in favor of design in biology. I was just asking you a question which you do not want to address. Fine, we'll drop it. From your request, you want to merely assume that your model is correct, and then start the discussion from there. In case it does not occur to you, this is the exact opposite of trying to understand. I was trying to understand your view on how life developed after there was a multi-cellular life form present. Many ID proponents would say that 'my model' could not account for what happened after that. Are you saying the unguided approach CAN account for what happened after that? Can you explain the specification required for life to become viable without discontinuous association and irreducible complexity, or not? I am trying to ask you about a different issue. You do not want to address my question. We'll just drop it.JVL_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

Wow, even as I was typing my last, EG comes in with his own turnabout accusation. Well, UB, while you will never get the satisfaction of getting JVL or EG to expressly admit they have nothing, their continual evasions have certainly given you the functional equivalent.Barry Arrington_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

"You don’t have to address my question; that’s fair. I won’t cstigate you for it." And now the inevitable turnabout accusation. Does it every get old being a cliche?Barry Arrington_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

UBP
Rope-a-dope.
Now who is walking away?Ed George_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

. JVL, it was a mistake if you believed your approach here was somehow novel, perhaps, obviously, you've placed too much confidence in your ability to sashay around the evidence in favor of design in biology. From your request, you want to merely assume that your model is correct, and then start the discussion from there. In case it does not occur to you, this is the exact opposite of trying to understand. Can you explain the specification required for life to become viable without discontinuous association and irreducible complexity, or not?Upright BiPed_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington: “I’m trying to have a discussion with you about . . . ” Any subject whatsoever so long as it does not require me to engage with your ideas. Sad that. Yes, pathetic. But sad too. You don't have to address my question; that's fair. I won't cstigate you for it.JVL_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: Why do you avoid it? Is it just a coincidence that it supports ID? Why do you keep avoiding my question?JVL_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

JVL "I’m trying to have a discussion with you about . . . " Any subject whatsoever so long as it does not require me to engage with your ideas. Sad that. Yes, pathetic. But sad too.Barry Arrington_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

.
That isn’t the question I want to deal with.
Why do you avoid it? Is it just a coincidence that it supports ID?Upright BiPed_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: Then you should be able to state that you are unable to explain the specification required for life to become viable without discontinuous association and irreducible complexity. Right? That isn't the question I want to deal with. Look, ID proponents tell me over and over and over again that my questions about when design was implemented and how design was implemented and who implemented design are not part of ID. I keep asking but they keep saying that's not the point. I'm trying to have a discussion with you about one aspect of the development of life on Earth. I'm granting you the existence of a multi-cellular life form and wanting to work from there. You keep wanting to work on a different question.JVL_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

.
Why?
Rope-a-dope. (in the defense of materialism from ID, using nothing more that documented physical evidence).Upright BiPed_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington: Give up on JVL. He obviously is unwilling or unable to engage. He wants to assume his conclusions. His confirmation bias is much safer that way. Also less psychologically painful if he shields himself from questions that not only he cannot answer but that cannot be, in principle, answered by anyone. First off, I'm happy to let Upright BiPed make up his own mind; he's clearly capable of defending his views! Secondly, I am narrowing down the discussion in an attempt to concentrate on one particular aspect of the disagreement between unguided evolutionary theory and intelligent design. Yes, I am picking something I feel more capable of having a good discussion about but I figured you would prefer that anyway!!JVL_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

.
I’m saying that I want to address the issue of the diversification of life once a viable . . .
Then you should be able to state that you are unable to explain the specification required for life to become viable without discontinuous association and irreducible complexity. Right?Upright BiPed_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

UB
A living thing must be specified among alternatives in order to exist.
Why?Ed George_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Upright. Give up on JVL. He obviously is unwilling or unable to engage. You have made your point with him. He wants to assume his conclusions. His confirmation bias is much safer that way. Also it is less psychologically painful for him if he shields himself from questions that not only he cannot answer but that cannot be, in principle, answered by anyone.Barry Arrington_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Vivid at 83. It was Camus.Barry Arrington_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: So your question merely assumes the very thing in question — i.e. that being the fact that materialism is unable to explain life without discontinuous association and irreducible complexity. Are you saying that you are unable to address that question? I'm saying that I want to address the issue of the diversification of life once a viable, multicellular life form was present.JVL_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

ET: No. There are different species with the same body plan. Right, okay. So . . . looking at very different body plans, let's say a spider and a snake. They do have very different genomes. Those genomes do something. Why is it not possible for one genome to transmogrify into another GIVEN that there are viable life forms along the path? Unless, of course, genomes do not determine bodies. So . . . <b?Genetic engineering comes to mind. Built-in responses to environmental cues also comes to mind. Yes, but we're still dancing around the idea of: what does the genome do? I don't think you think that the genome determines form (given epigenetic factors). But I do not want to put words in your mouth. IF you don't think the genome determines form then what does determine form? And how do you get new forms if the genome does not determine it?JVL_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

.
I wanted to start at that point where such a thing already existed as I said. So, yes
So your question merely assumes the very thing in question -- i.e. that being the fact that materialism is unable to explain life without discontinuous association and irreducible complexity. Are you saying that you are unable to address that question?Upright BiPed_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

JVL:
Aren’t you assuming, that mutations change form?
No. There are different species with the same body plan.
How do you get a new species?
Genetic engineering comes to mind. Built-in responses to environmental cues also comes to mind.ET_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

ET: Not if it takes more than two specified mutations. Aren't you assuming, that mutations change form? That genomics determine morphology? I thought you . . . okay, perhaps you should clarify your views on that. How do you get a new species? Can it be done just via genomic alterations no matter where they come from?JVL_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: Would such a thing have to be specified among alternatives in order to exist? If so, then it assumes the very thing I asked about, and is therefore irrelevant to that question. Well, I wanted to start at that point where such a thing already existed as I said. So, yes, a very limited query.JVL_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

JVL:
Yes, but how far? Not a new species?
Not if it takes more than two specified mutations.ET_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

.
Let’s say we start with a multi-cellular life
Would such a thing have to be specified among alternatives in order to exist? If so, then it assumes the very thing I asked about, and is therefore irrelevant to that question.Upright BiPed_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: A question that clarifies the challenge, so that you can respond to it? I admit I haven't always kept with arguments I've brought forward. In this particular case I am just trying to be clear on your views so that I do not misrepresent them. And I am getting at the 'micro' vs 'macro' evolution issue. I'm just trying to see where your line is.JVL_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

ET: According to the paper “Waiting for TWO Mutations”, not very far at all. Yes, but how far? Not a new species?JVL_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply