Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Nobelist Jack Szostak on origin of life research: “We’re halfway there”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Jack W. Szostak

In “From Telomeres to the Origins of Life” (New York Times, October 19, 2011) Claudia Dreifus interviews origin of life researcher (and Nobelist, for telomeres)

Jack Szostak: What do you study now?

The origins of life. In my lab, we’re interested in the transition from chemistry to early biology on the early earth. Let’s go back to the early earth — let’s say probably some time within the first 500 million years. And let’s say the right chemistry that would make the building blocks of life has happened and you have the right molecules with which you can spark life. How did those chemicals get together and act something like a cell? You want something that can grow and divide and, most importantly, exhibit Darwinian evolution. The way that we study that is by trying to make it happen in the lab. We take simple chemicals and put them together in the right way. And we’re trying to build a very, very simple cell that might look like something that might have developed spontaneously on the early earth.

How far have you gotten?

Maybe I can say we’re halfway there.

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.

It sounds as though they have solved the easy part of the problem, but that, unfortunately, doesn’t really mean “halfway there.”

Comments
Agreed. Now turn this 90 degrees and have the CNC mill produce itself as the object, as directed by a new set of instructions. The instructions are what determine the object that's created. The ability to self-replicate would be a function of the software. The ability to replicate other objects would also. In either case the hardware is constant, and needs to be in place ahead of any instructions it receives. Hardware and software are indeed separate. There's nothing conceptually inhibiting about using the sophisticated production facility of a living cell to produce other nano machines, given different software -- that is, a different, but still very specific, permutation of the nucleotides in the same DNA molecule.material.infantacy
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
It's only when you assume that the specified effect is special, or purposeful that you find it hard to believe it occurred without intervention by an intelligent designer. This is another example of assuming your conclusion that life was designed.lastyearon
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
the issue of how two arranegments of matter became coordinated to result in a specified effect
Arrangements of matter become coordinated to produce specific effects all the time. Are they all miracles?lastyearon
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
Mike, So what the cell is, is hardware, and what the cell does is software ?lastyearon
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
BIPED: In what part of the model do those polymers take on the essential charateristics of representations and protocols? LIDDLE: When the sequence itself affects the probability of reproduction. Setting completely aside the unresolved issue of how these polymers are being reproduced (at all) with mutable inheretance (in order to have one version be more successful than another). There is absolutely no substance in your answer whatsoever as to the issue of how two arranegments of matter became coordinated to result in a specified effect while all three remain physically isolated from one another. Zero.Upright BiPed
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
EL: The distinction (software vs hardware) is completely meaningless in the context of a cell.
Hardware refers to physical entities. Software refers to temporal relationships of those physical entities, and the order in which events occur. A change in the DNA nucleotides amounts to a software change which can result in a hardware change. Similar to how a change in a CNC "tape" can change the shape and function of the object that the CNC produces. There is clearly a distinction between software and hardware operating within a cell.mike1962
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
Collin, there's also a connotation of promoting the efficacy of self organization. It's hard to escape the tacit suggestion that self organization solves the problem -- that once you can isolate a host of good molecules via a membrane to keep the devil substances out, the rest eventually takes care of itself. This is the assumption that ID thought challenges, and hence the catalyst for the various "halfway there" jabs. I think this point was lost on EL, who seemed to take some offense at my comments as criticisms of the research itself. m.i.material.infantacy
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
Which post are you replying to?Elizabeth Liddle
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
And I was responding to the man's own words. I don't believe the research is insubstantial -- I believe that it doesn't support what it promotes, and there's a big difference. While at most the research moves along how abiogeneses might have produced the first life, at the least it demonstrates how intelligent design definitely gets it done. Quite obviously, I took issue with the "halfway there" comment, in the context of Szostak's other remarks. It's a valid criticism, and a good opportunity for a bit of fun.material.infantacy
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
That wasn't an answer. It was specifically a non answer.Upright BiPed
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
checkUpright BiPed
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
The transfer of information during protein synthesis is semiotic. It requires an arrangement of material that to act as a representation which is immaterial to its resulting effect within the system. It requires a second coodinated arrangement of material that establishes the immaterial mapping from the representation to the material effect. It requires the material effect to be altered by the input of the representation, and it requires each of these physical things to operate discretely from one another.Upright BiPed
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
"Wasted money. Wasted time. Wasted science."
I'll politely disagree with the wasted science part. Eventually the research might indeed be valuable for instructing the next generation of scientists how brilliant nanotechnology is intelligently designed.material.infantacy
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
Do the sequences that favor molecular replication also represent functions required for a proto self replicator? The sequence specificity required for assembling proteins is what's at issue -- and how that comes about in genesis with the stored sequences in DNA.material.infantacy
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
Yes, he does think so. But his lipid vesicle idea was pretty good, as one of the problems that has to be solved with the polymer part is how to make it part of a whole system that reproduces, and in which the polymer components are kept together and passed on to the clone. So the membrane work has huge implications for the polymer part, and isn't really separate.Elizabeth Liddle
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
When the sequence itself affects the probability of reproduction.Elizabeth Liddle
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
In what part of the model do those polymers take on the essential charateristics of representations and protocols?Upright BiPed
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
Liddle, you have a good point, but material.infantacy also has a good point. Obviously Szostak himself thinks that the genetic material is the harder half of the problem. But I actually admire his optimism. It is a good quality in a scientist and I don't think he is trying to be dishonest or anything. I just think he has overstated his case a little. After all, he seems to not even think it's a problem that the cell membrane part was created in a lab under controlled conditions.Collin
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
Well, I'm defending research that is much more substantial than you are inferring. Szostak's work is not just about the lipid vesicles, but about how their probability of reproducing may be influenced by included polymers, and how the actual sequences of those polymers might further affect reproductive success.Elizabeth Liddle
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
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.
The point is made by Szostak's own words from the interview, innit?
Maybe I can say we’re halfway there.
You sound defensive.material.infantacy
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
Fine. The hardware that is also the software is not there. Is that a more accurate statement?Collin
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
Yes indeed. The properties of a system can be, and usually are, different from the properties of its parts. And if you have a self-replicating entity where the those that replicate best have physical/chemical attributes that differ from those that replicate less well, the physical/chemical attributes of those that replicate best will embody information about how to create a system that replicates well in that environment. There is nothing spooky about it at all. In fact it's self-evidently true.Elizabeth Liddle
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
You don’t have “hardware” molecules then “install software” on them. What you have is are molecules that obey the laws of physics and chemistry. You couldn’t take a cell and “wipe the operating system” or “install a new operating system” without changing the actual molecules.
You don't have "hardware" magnetic particles and then "install software" on them. What you have are magnetic particles that obey the laws of physics and chemistry. You couldn't take a hard drive and "wipe the operating system" or "install a new operating system" without changing the actual magnetic particles.material.infantacy
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
Nowhere is Stzostak’s brilliant research does he pay one iota of attention to this observed reality in the systems as they are actually found.
Yes, he does. You seem to have forgotten about the polymer part of the story.Elizabeth Liddle
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
Do read his papers before you "sum...it up".Elizabeth Liddle
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
What you have is are molecules that obey the laws of physics and chemistry.
...and which exhibit properties beyond physics and chemistry.Upright BiPed
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
I thought I'd responded to this: Scott, do read Szostak's actual papers, not a brief transcript of an interview. It is you who are "drawing conclusions based on nothing". Szostak's hypotheses are indeed supported by data, but you need to read the actual papers to find out what.Elizabeth Liddle
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
In cells, the hardware is an expression of the software, which is assembled by the hardware. Indeed, the computer analogy is not perfect, but there's nothing more appropriate -- until we invent software which instructs the construction of its own assembly and replication hardware, via an already bootstrapped system, otherwise dependent on the software and hardware that it replicates.material.infantacy
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
Do you have that phrase set up as a keyboard shortcut, Joseph? Yes, there is evidence for that claim. Genetic engineering for a start - you change part of a DNA molecule, and "the thing just runs". Or take the paper we were discussing the other day - Joyce's work. "We just let them cook, let them amplify themselves silly" said Joyce. To use your favorite phrase: you don't have any evidence for vitalism.Elizabeth Liddle
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
That about sums it up. Building A Computer First half: the case. Second half: CPU, memory, motherboard, video card, sound card, Ethernet, hard drive, et cetera. Third half: BIOS and operating system.material.infantacy
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply