Here at UD, we often have commenters whose remarks are well worth headlining. Here, we have JAD in action, suggesting to GP: “Here is something you might consider as a seed for a future topic for a future OP.” Yup, and even as an embryonic thought, it is well worth posting — a first, rough draft on a big topic:
>>The origin of life is like the origin of the universe. It appears to be a singular, non-repeating, highly improbable event which occurred very early in earth’s history. Furthermore, all the clues of how and why it occurred have been lost. But then added to that problem are other problems: how does chemistry create code? What is required to create an autonomously self-replicating system which has the possibility of evolving into something more complex? The naturalist/ materialist then compounds the problem by demanding a priori that the origin of life must be completely natural– undirected without an intelligent plan or purpose.
That seems like it was a miracle… Well, maybe it was. But a completely “naturalistic miracle” seems to be an absurd self-defeating claim for the naturalist/materialist to make.
One of my pipe dreams as a real life (now retired) machine designer is to design a self-replicating machine or automata– the kind that was first envisioned by mathematician John von Neumann. My vision is not a machine that could replicate itself from already existing parts but a machine– well actually machines– which could replicate themselves from raw material they would find on a rocky planet in some distant star system. [–> this brings in the metabolising side, to join the self-replication facility]
One practical advantage of such machines is they could be sent out in advance some far-in-the-distant-future expedition to terraform a suitable planet in another star system preparing it for colonist who might arrive centuries or millennia later.
By analogy, that is what the first living cells which originated on the early earth had to do.
Even the simplest prokaryote cell is on the sub-cellular level a collection of machines networked together to replicate the whole system. To suggest that somehow the first cell emerged by some fortuitous accident is betray an ignorance how really complex primitive cells are.
Try thinking this through on a more macro level, as I have described above, and I think you will begin to appreciate how really daunting the problem is.>>
Several comments later, GP responds, and so we clip again:
>> . . . My personal view is that there is no difference between OOL and evolution, in essence. Both problems are about the origin of complex functional information in a non design system. Which is impossible. Therefore, both problems lead to a strong, unavoidable design inference.
The idea that self replication can help solve the problem of the origin of new complex functional information is simply wrong.
Self- replication just implies as assumption the existence of some complex functional information, the information which implements self-replication. In that scenario, the existing information may undergo simple modifications, and computation systems already present in the system (for example, NS) can derive some new information from what already exists. But that computation (which is nothing else than well known microevolution) is extremely limited, because it can only:
a) Generate very low levels of new functional information, because of the extreme limitations in the variation component
b) Compute that low information only as regards the already defined function (replication), and not for any other new function
I have discussed in detail these aspects in two specific OPs:
What are the limits of Natural Selection? An interesting open discussion with Gordon Davisson
and:
What are the limits of Random Variation? A simple evaluation of the probabilistic resources of our biological world
That’s why I see no reall difference between OOL and evolution: the transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, for example, is as impossible as OOL in a non design setting.
The same could be said for the Cambriam explosion, of for the transition to vertebrates.
In the ultimate sense, each new complex and functional protein which arises in the course of natural history is as impossible as OOL, in a non design scenario.
Moreover, my firm conviction is that life originated on our planet with LUCA, and that LUCA was essentially a full fledged prokaryote.
So OK, I can agree that OOL presents some very special difficulties, but believe me, all that happens after that presents very special difficulties too! 🙂>>
JAD continues, responding to GP:
>>I don’t have time to respond to all the points you raised but let me key on a couple.
You wrote:
Self- replication just implies as assumption the existence of some complex functional information, the information which implements self-replication. In that scenario, the existing information may undergo simple modifications, and computation systems already present in the system (for example, NS) can derive some new information from what already exists. But that computation (which is nothing else than well known microevolution) is extremely limited, because it can only:
a) Generate very low levels of new functional information, because of the extreme limitations in the variation component
b) Compute that low information only as regards the already defined function (replication), and not for any other new function
The very fact of self-replication raises the question of what I call “evolvability.” Is self-replication alone sufficient for a simple cell to evolve into something more complex? For example, is the ability of a smallest known prokaryote, Mycoplasma genitalium, to replicate, sufficient for it to eventually evolve into a eukaryote? (A lot of Darwinists without proof or evidence would “argue” yes.) Do all eukaryotes have the potential of evolving into multicellular life forms? What is it that gives them that potential? And of course, from there follow the questions about higher life forms… specialization and diversification of not only organisms but the specialized cellular architecture and organs within distinct organisms. In other words, if they evolved what are the sufficient conditions for them to evolve? Can evolution, as the naturalist/ materialist believe, occur without evolution itself being designed?
Moreover, my firm conviction is that life originated on our planet with LUCA, and that LUCA was essentially a full fledged prokaryote.
Why? Even Darwin was open to the suggestion that the origin of life could be polyphyletic.
From a design perspective a polyphyletic explanation for OoL makes a lot of sense. Let me give you a couple of examples:
First, suppose a super advanced race of ETI beings visited the earth some 3.7 billion years ago and decided to seed it with life. Would they seed it with a single simple prokaryotic life form or would the seed it with a cocktail of microorganisms. Statistically one isolated organism wouldn’t have much chance of surviving.
Or second, does it necessarily follow that a transcendent creator (God), if that’s that’s the cause, would be required to start with a single simple microbe?>>
GP responded:
>>A couple of simple comments to your comments:
“Is self-replication alone sufficient for a simple cell to evolve into something more complex?”
My answer is: no. IMO, as I have already said, already existing self-replication can only:
a) Generate very low levels of new functional information, because of the extreme limitations in the variation component
b) Compute that low information only as regards the already defined function (replication), and not for any other new function
IOWs, the existing information which allows self-replication can undergo some tweaking in the limited measure that RV and NS can allow, and nothing more. No new functions, no new original complex functional information. Just limited adaptations of the complex functional information that alrwady exists.
“Why? Even Darwin was open to the suggestion that the origin of life could be polyphyletic.”
You are perfectly right. But even biologists admit that LUCA was not necesserily one orgnaism, but possibly a set of organisms.
I am a convinced believer in common descent, but I have always said that there is no real evidence that it needs be universal common descent.
However, what we know tends to favor, at present, the idea that prokaryotes appeared first, and eukaryotes much later. Not all agree with that, but in general I would accept that scenario, at least as the best explanation available at present.
However, even if OOL was polyphyletic, there is no doubt that a lot of basic information necessary for life is almost universally shared between all forms of life that we know.>>
This sets up a serious discussion on technically rich matters, but on recent track record, let’s see if we will get more of they won’t sing and they won’t mourn. END