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
Point taken, Scott, but that's why there is no point in making the distinction when it comes to cells. Unlike a computer, where you have a box, with various components in it, and then you install some operating system, then some software, that sequence is meaningless when talking about cells (or brains, for that matter). 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. The distinction is completely meaningless in the context of a cell.Elizabeth Liddle
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
Szostak: "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." --- BA77: How in blue blazes does he even know he is halfway to anything other than what he has imagined. Given that he is not even considering how ‘quantum entanglement/computation’ developed within molecular biology, I can assure him that he is only halfway into a pipe dream!!! === You've missed an even more important point here. Look again at the man's own words and what they are really saying. "And we’re trying to build a very, very simple cell . . " Jack Szostak along with Gerald Joyce(RNA-World Myth Fame) both are perfect examples of how you prove Intelligent Design, but no one ever holds them accountable for their cheating and lying. We never once get a clean honest observable experiment that is likewise replicatable to help us all understand just how blind undirected forces without goals or purpose accomplish anything. So the next time an Atheist backslides on a question and does a desparate default "Burden Shift" on you and demands an explanation on just how ID explains it, point to their own work done by their religious Cult leaders. Ultimately it doesn't matter what their own intended Atheistic/Agnostic goal or purpose was in the experiment. Only that it indeed was! And it needed an inteligence to manipulate and rig the thing for a forced outcome.Eocene
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
You want something that can grow and divide and, most importantly, exhibit Darwinian evolution.
"Darwinian evolution" is the transfer of actual, not analogous, information. As such it places observable physical requirements on the materials within the system. 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. His model is therefore flawed from the outset. Just take a look at the silly videos on YouTube promoting his model. There is absolutely nothing there about these observable qualities coming about. When all this fails (which it will most cartainly do) please let us all remember the drumbeat of questions coming from the orthodoxy; "What practical use is there to design thinking?" Well, here are three irreversible entries onto that hypermutable list. Wasted money. Wasted time. Wasted science.Upright BiPed
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
I don't mean to throw a wrench in, but the distinction between hardware and software in computers isn't quite so clear. When we say "hardware" and "software" we know exactly what we mean. It's not the terms are ambiguous. But software and the processor are both doing the same thing. You execute a program. The program calls a function within itself or in some other library. It calls another. At the bottom it's calling a function that resides within the processor. In a sense they are the same. The only difference is that some functions are stored in memory or elsewhere while others are etched in silicon.ScottAndrews
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
But Szostak is looking at pre-biotic chemistry. If anyone could say with assurance how this will turn out, there would be no need for research.Petrushka
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
Cf embedded systems, in which the software lives inside the system and in effect is only seen as executable machine code, in the context of mRNA and protein assembly.kairosfocus
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
Software is an intangible that is always seen by being manifested through hardware.kairosfocus
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Left off: you have to have genes and metabolism inside with a self-replicating von Neumann self replicator, to be relevant to observed cell based life . . . Toughie.kairosfocus
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
I think I've heard about this kind of "half way there" before: Viz: "We want to get to 10^40 Mev. We can currently do 10^20 Mev so we must be half way there". Exponentials; who'd have them?Timothy V Reeves
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
I bet that the part they say to know, the membrane, it is also a so story.Blas
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
When Szostak readily admits he really doesn't even have a clue where "THERE" is:
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 in blue blazes does he even know he is halfway to anything other than what he has imagined. Given that he is not even considering how 'quantum entanglement/computation' developed within molecular biology, I can assure him that he is only halfway into a pipe dream!!!bornagain77
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
Amazing. Two parts. First, a membrane. And then that other part, "some genetic material, which has to perform some function that’s useful for the cell." I take back everything I ever facetiously said about taking this seriously. (Although everything I've ever said to the effect that the research favors design over abiogenesis still stands.) Parts come together and start "acting like a cell?" If there is no cell yet, how can any genetic material be useful to it? Things just begin performing functions for other things? How can Szostak possibly know that he's 'halfway' to anywhere? There is not a shred, not particle of evidence that there is a 'there' to get halfway to! The least offensive way I can describe this is that it is irrational. Szostak is drawing conclusions based on nothing, and people are believing him. Don't say it's a hypothesis supported by data. Szostak clearly thinks he's halfway to somewhere.ScottAndrews
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
Of course there is a meaningful distinction in living things. How do you think transcription, translation, proof-reading, error-correction, editing and splicing take place? That is all software driven.Joseph
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
Unfortunately you don't have any evidence for that claimJoseph
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
Yes, once all the components are there, the thing will just run.Elizabeth Liddle
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
No, in computers, the hardware is not the software. There is a meaningful distinction in computers. There is no meaningful distinction in living things.Elizabeth Liddle
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
Yeah right and the computer's hardware is also its software... Well Elizabeth you are wrong- there is software running the hardware (living organisms are both hardware and software, the software tells the hardware what to do, or do you really think that once all the components are there then things will just run?)Joseph
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
The hardware is the software, Joseph.Elizabeth Liddle
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
Yup, perhaps 1/2 way there pertaining to the hardware (big maybe) but pertaining to the software scientists haven't even started.Joseph
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply