Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Oldies but baddies — AF repeats NCSE’s eight challenges to ID (from ten years ago)

Categories
ID Foundations
science education
Selective Hyperskepticism
specified complexity
worldview
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a recent thread by Dr Sewell, AF raised again the Shallit-Elsberry list of eight challenges to design theory from a decade ago:

14 Alan FoxApril 15, 2013 at 12:56 am Unlike Profesor Hunt, Barry and Eric think design detection is well established. How about having a go at this list then. It’s been published for quite a while now.

I responded a few hours later:

______________

>>* 16 kairosfocus April 15, 2013 at 2:13 am

AF:

I note on points re your list of eight challenges.

This gets tiresomely repetitive, in a pattern of refusal to be answerable to adequate evidence, on the part of too many objectors to design theory:

>>1 Publish a mathematically rigorous definition of CSI>>

It has long since been shown, objections and censorship games notwithstanding, that reasonable quantitative metrics for FSCO/I and so for CSI, can be built and have been built. Indeed Durston et al have used such to provide a published list of values for 15 protein families.

>> 2 Provide real evidence for CSI claims >>

Blatant, all around you. But, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

Just to pick an example {–> from the list}, a phone number is obviously functionally specific (ever had a wrong number call?) and — within a reasonable context [though not beyond the 500 bit threshold] complex.

>> 3 Apply CSI to identify human agency where it is currently not known >>

FSCO/I is routinely intuitively used to identify artifacts of unknown cause, as IIRC, WmAD has pointed out regarding a room in the Smithsonian full of artifacts of unknown purpose but identified to be credibly human.

>> 4 Distinguish between chance and design in archaeoastronomy >>

The pattern of Nazca lines or the like, fit within the nodes-arcs pattern and collectively exhibit FSCO/I similar to other complex drawings. The 500 bit threshold is easily passed. If you want to contrast odds of a marker wandering randomly in a random walk, the difference will be trivial.

In short this is a refusal to use simple common sense and good will.

>> 5 Apply CSI to archaeology >>

Just shown, this is a case or repeating much the same objection in much the same context as though drumbeat repetition is capable of establishing a claim by erasing the underlying fallacies. Being wrong over and over and over again, even in the usual anti-design echo chambers, does not convert long since corrected fallacy into cogent reasoning.

>> 6 Provide a more detailed account of CSI in biology
Produce a workbook of examples using the explanatory filter, applied to a progressive series of biological phenomena, including allelic substitution of a point mutation. >>

There are book-length cogent treatments of CSI as applied to biology [try Meyer’s SITC for starts {{ –> . . . I know, I know, this was published 2009, six years after the “challenge,” but AF is raising it in 2013, TEN years after the challenge}}], and that is not enough for the objectors, there will never be enough details.

Similarly, the objection starts within an island of existing function and demands a CSI based explanation of a phenomenon known to be well within the threshold of complexity. This is a strawman tactic.

>> 7 Use CSI to classify the complexity of animal communication As mentioned in Elsberry and Shallit (2003: 9), many birds exhibit complex songs. >>

What?

Is there any doubt that bird or whale songs or bee dances for that matter are long enough and complex enough to be FSCI? That they function in communication? That we did not directly observe the origin of the capacities for such but have reason to see that they are grounded in CSI in the genome and related regulatory information expressed in embryological development that wires the relevant nerve pathways?

So, are you demanding a direct observation of the origin of such, which we do not have access to and cannot reasonably expect, when we do have access to the fact that we have indications of FSCO/I and so raise the question as to what FSCO/I is a known reliable, strongly tested sign of as best causal explanation?

>> 8 Animal cognition
Apply CSI to resolve issues in animal cognition and language use by non-human animals. >>

Capacity for language, of course, is biologically rooted, genetically stamped and embryologically expressed. So it fits into the same set of issues addressed under 7 just now.

Repetitive use of fallacies does not suddenly convert them into sound arguments.

Nor, can one reasonably demand solutions to any number of known unresolved scientific problems as a condition of accepting something that is already well enough warranted on reasonable application of inductive principles. That is, it is well established on billions of test cases without significant exception, that FSCO/I is a reliable sign of design as cause.
____________

To suddenly demand that design thinkers must solve any number of unsolved scientific questions or the evidence already in hand will be rejected, is a sign of selective hyeprskepticism and a red herring tactic led away to a strawman misrepresentation, not a case of serious and cogent reasoning. >>

=========

(*And yes, AF, I am modifying French-style quote marks to account for the effect of the Less Than sign in an HTML-sensitive context. No need to go down that little convenient side-track again twice within a few days. Especially, as someone by your own testimony apparently living in a Francophone area.)

NB: BA77’s comment at 17 is worth a look also. Let’s clip in modified French style, that he may clip and run that readeth:

>> Mr. Fox, it seems the gist of your eight ‘questions’ from ten years ago is that you doubt whether or not information, as a distinct entity, is even in the cell? In fact I remember many arguments with neo-Darwinists on UD, not so many years back, who denied information, as a distinct entity, was even in the cell. Is this still your position? If so, may I enlighten you to this recent development???,,,

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram – Sebastian Anthony – August 17, 2012
Excerpt: A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvard’s Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data — around 700 terabytes — in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times.,,, Just think about it for a moment: One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. That’s 14,000 50-gigabyte Blu-ray discs… in a droplet of DNA that would fit on the tip of your pinky. To store the same kind of data on hard drives — the densest storage medium in use today — you’d need 233 3TB drives, weighing a total of 151 kilos. In Church and Kosuri’s case, they have successfully stored around 700 kilobytes of data in DNA — Church’s latest book, in fact — and proceeded to make 70 billion copies (which they claim, jokingly, makes it the best-selling book of all time!) totaling 44 petabytes of data stored.
http://www.extremetech.com/ext…..ingle-gram

That DNA stores information is pretty much the mainstream position now Mr. Fox,,,

Venter: Life Is Robotic Software – July 15, 2012
Excerpt: “All living cells that we know of on this planet are ‘DNA software’-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions,” said (Craig) Venter.
http://crev.info/2012/07/life-is-robotic-software/

That information is a distinct entity in the cell is pretty uncontroversial Mr. Fox, so why the list of eight questions? The only question that really matters is can purely material processes generate these extreme levels of functional information? Perhaps you would like to be the first Darwinist on UD to produce evidence that material processes can produce enough functional information for say the self assembly of a novel molecular machine?>>

The much underestimated and too often derided BA77  continues at 18:

>> Mr. Fox, as to the fact that a cell contains functional information, I would like to, since Dr. Sewell approaches this from the thermodynamic perspective, point out something that gets missed in the definition of functional information in the specific sequences of DNA, RNAs, and proteins. There is a deep connection between entropy and information,,

“Is there a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information? ….The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental…”
Siegfried, Dallas Morning News, 5/14/90, [Quotes Robert W. Lucky, Ex. Director of Research, AT&T, Bell Laboratories & John A. Wheeler, of Princeton & Univ. of TX, Austin]

“Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.”
Charles J. Smith – Biosystems, Vol.1, p259.

Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010
Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski.
http://www.scientificamerican……rts-inform

And what is particularly interesting about this deep connection between information and entropy is that,,,

“Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more.”
Gilbert Newton Lewis – preeminent Chemist of the first half of last century

And yet despite the fact that entropic processes tend to degrade information, it is found that the thermodynamic disequilibrium of a ‘simple’ bacteria and the environment is,,,

“a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.” – R. C. Wysong
http://books.google.com/books?…..;lpg=PA112

Moleular Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: – Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley
Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz’ deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures.
http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/~a…..ecular.htm

Moreover we now have good empirics to believe that information itself is what is constraining the cell to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium:

Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH
Excerpt: It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate.
http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=420

Does DNA Have Telepathic Properties?-A Galaxy Insight – 2009
Excerpt: DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn’t be able to.,,, The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_…..ave-t.html

In fact, Encoded ‘classical’ information such as what Dembski and Marks demonstrated the conservation of, and such as what we find encoded in computer programs, and yes, as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of ‘transcendent’ (beyond space and time) quantum information/entanglement by the following method:,,,

Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011
Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect;
In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…..134300.htm

And yet, despite all this, we have ZERO evidence that material processes can generate even trivial amounts classical information much less generate massive amounts transcendent ‘non-local’ quantum information/entanglement,,,

Stephen Meyer – The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design
https://vimeo.com/32148403

Stephen Meyer – “The central argument of my book is that intelligent design—the activity of a conscious and rational deliberative agent—best explains the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living cell. I argue this because of two things that we know from our uniform and repeated experience, which following Charles Darwin I take to be the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. First, intelligent agents have demonstrated the capacity to produce large amounts of functionally specified information (especially in a digital form). Second, no undirected chemical process has demonstrated this power. Hence, intelligent design provides the best—most causally adequate—explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life from simpler non-living chemicals. In other words, intelligent design is the only explanation that cites a cause known to have the capacity to produce the key effect in question.”

Verse and Music:

John 1:1-4
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

The Afters – Every Good Thing – Lyric Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY2ycrpbOlw >>

Joe puts in a good knock at 25:

>>Earth to Alan Fox,

Neither you, Shallit, Elsberry nor the NCSE need concern yourselves with CSI. That is because all of you can render CSI moot just by stepping up and demonstrating that blind and undirected processes can account for what we call CSI.

It is that simple- demonstrate blind and undirected processes can produce CSI and our argument wrt CSI, falls.

However seeing that you all are nothing but cowards, you won’t do that because that means actually having to make a positive case. And everyone in the world knows that you cannot do such a thing.

The point being is that your misguided attacks on ID are NOT going to provide positiove evidence for your position. And only positive evidence for blind and undirected processes producing CSI is going to refute our arguments. >>

I picked back up from BA77 at 26:

>> BA77: The connexion between entropy and information is indeed important. I like the expression of it that runs like: the entropy of a body is the average missing info to specify the exact microstate of its constituent particles, that exists if what one knows about the system is the thermodynamic macrostate defined by its macro-level thermodynamic properties. This of course implies the degree of freedom or lack of constraint on the particles, and links to the situation where a rise in entropy is often linked to a rise in disorder, a degradation of availability of energy.  >>

_______________
And, dear Reader, what do you think AF’s answer is, several days later on this the 19th of April in this, The Year of Our Risen Lord, “dos mil trece” [= 2013]?

Dead silence, and heading off to other threads where he thought he could score debate points.

(In short, he raised dismissive talking points and stayed not for an answer. Sad.)

Let us hope that headlining the above will at least allow others who need and want such, to find a reasonable summary answer to the NCSE talking points. END

PS: Dembski and Luskin have responded at one time or another to the S-E team, try here and here (part II here; complete with with AF popping up here at no 3).

Comments
Actually franklin since he was talking about DNA and RNA, it is you who is misreading. OOL (Origin Of Life) on the Rocks: Excerpt: An important survey of the origin-of-life (OOL) field has been published in Scientific American. Robert Shapiro, a senior prize-winning chemist, cancer researcher, emeritus professor and author of books in the field, debunks the Miller experiment, the RNA World and other popular experiments as unrealistic dead ends. Describing the wishful thinking of some researchers, he said, “In a form of molecular vitalism, some scientists have presumed that nature has an innate tendency to produce life’s building blocks preferentially, rather than the hordes of other molecules that can also be derived from the rules of organic chemistry.” Shapiro had been explaining that millions of organic molecules can form that are not RNA nucleotides. These are not only useless to life, they get in the way and clog up the beneficial reactions. He went on to describe how extrapolation from the Miller Experiment produced an unearned sense of euphoria among researchers: “By extrapolation of these results, some writers have presumed that all of life’s building could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites and other extraterrestrial bodies. This is not the case,” he warned in a section entitled, “The Soup Kettle Is Empty.” He said that no experiment has produced amino acids with more than three carbons (life uses some with six), and no Miller-type experiment has ever produced nucleotides or nucleosides, essential for DNA and RNA. Shapiro described in some detail the difficult steps that organic chemists employ to synthesize the building blocks of RNA, using conditions highly unrealistic on the primitive earth. “The point was the demonstration that humans could produce, however inefficiently, substances found in nature,” he said. “Unfortunately, neither chemists nor laboratories were present on the early Earth to produce RNA.” Here, for instance, is how scientists had to work to create cytosine, one of the DNA bases: I will cite one example of prebiotic synthesis, published in 1995 by Nature and featured in the New York Times. The RNA base cytosine was prepared in high yield by heating two purified chemicals in a sealed glass tube at 100 degrees Celsius for about a day. One of the reagents, cyanoacetaldehyde, is a reactive substance capable of combining with a number of common chemicals that may have been present on the early Earth. These competitors were excluded. An extremely high concentration was needed to coax the other participant, urea, to react at a sufficient rate for the reaction to succeed. The product, cytosine, can self-destruct by simple reaction with water. When the urea concentration was lowered, or the reaction allowed to continue too long, any cytosine that was produced was subsequently destroyed. This destructive reaction had been discovered in my laboratory, as part of my continuing research on environmental damage to DNA. Our own cells deal with it by maintaining a suite of enzymes that specialize in DNA repair. There seems to be a stark difference between the Real World and the imaginary RNA World. Despite this disconnect, Shapiro describes some of the hype the RNA World scenario generated when Gilbert first suggested it in 1986. “The hypothesis that life began with RNA was presented as a likely reality, rather than a speculation, in journals, textbooks and the media,” he said. He also described the intellectual hoops researchers have envisioned to get the scenario to work: freezing oceans, drying lagoons, dry deserts and other unlikely environments in specific sequences to keep the molecules from destroying themselves. This amounts to attributing wish-fulfillment and goal-directed behavior to inanimate objects, as Shapiro makes clear with this colorful analogy: The analogy that comes to mind is that of a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course, then assumed that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence. He had demonstrated the possibility of the event; it was only necessary to presume that some combination of natural forces (earthquakes, winds, tornadoes and floods, for example) could produce the same result, given enough time. No physical law need be broken for spontaneous RNA formation to happen, but the chances against it are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to generate RNA. The majority of origin-of-life scientists who still support the RNA-first theory either accept this concept (implicitly, if not explicitly) or feel that the immensely unfavorable odds were simply overcome by good luck. Realistically, unfavorable molecules are just as likely to form. These would act like terminators for any hopeful molecules, he says. Shapiro uses another analogy. He pictures a gorilla pounding on a huge keyboard containing not only the English alphabet, but every letter of every language and all the symbol sets in a typical computer. “The chances for the spontaneous assembly of a replicator in the pool I described above can be compared to those of the gorilla composing, in English, a coherent recipe for the preparation of chili con carne.” That’s why Gerald Joyce, Mr. RNA-World himself, and Leslie Orgel, a veteran OOL researcher with Stanley Miller, concluded that the spontaneous appearance of chains of RNA on the early earth “would have been a near miracle.” Boy, and all this bad news is only halfway through the article. Does he have any good news? Not yet; we must first agree with a ground rule stated by Nobel laureate Christian de Duve, who called for “a rejection of improbabilities so incommensurably high that they can only be called miracles, phenomena that fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry.” That rules out starting with complex molecules like DNA, RNA, and proteins (see online book). http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200702.htm#20070215a But Shapiro did go on the propose a miracle laden metabolism first scenario: From that principle, Shapiro advocated a return to scenarios with environmental cycles involving simple molecules. These thermodynamic or “metabolism first” scenarios are only popular among about a third of OOL researchers at this time. Notable subscribers include Harold Morowitz, Gunter Wachtershauser, Christian de Duve, Freeman Dyson and Shapiro himself. Their hypotheses, too, have certain requirements that must be met: an energy source, boundaries, ways to couple the energy to the organization, and a chemical network or cycle able to grow and reproduce. (The problems of genetics and heredity are shuffled into the future in these theories.) How are they doing? “Over the years, many theoretical papers have advanced particular metabolism first schemes, but relatively little experimental work has been presented in support of them,” Shapiro admits. “In those cases where experiments have been published, they have usually served to demonstrate the plausibility of individual steps in a proposed cycle.” In addition, “An understanding of the initial steps leading to life would not reveal the specific events that led to the familiar DNA-RNA-protein-based organisms of today.” Nor would plausible prebiotic cycles prove that’s what happened on the early earth. Success in the metabolism-first experiments would only contribute to hope that prebiotic cycles are plausible in principle, not that they actually happened. Nevertheless, Shapiro himself needed to return to the miracles he earlier rejected. “Some chance event or circumstance may have led to the connection of nucleotides to form RNA,” he speculates. Where did the nucleotides come from? Didn’t he say their formation was impossibly unlikely? How did they escape rapid destruction by water? Those concerns aside, maybe nucleotides initially served some other purpose and got co-opted, by chance, in the developing network of life. Showing that such thoughts represent little more than a pipe dream, though, he admits: “Many further steps in evolution would be needed to ‘invent’ the elaborate mechanisms for replication and specific protein synthesis that we observe in life today.” Time for Shapiro’s grand finale. For an article predominantly discouraging and critical, his final paragraph is surprisingly upbeat. Recounting that the highly-implausible big-molecule scenarios imply a lonely universe, he offers hope with the small-molecule alternative. Quoting Stuart Kauffman, “If this is all true, life is vastly more probable than we have supposed. Not only are we at home in the universe, but we are far more likely to share it with unknown companions.” Update Letters to the editor appeared in Science1 the next day, debating the two leading theories of OOL. The signers included most of the big names: Stanley Miller, Jeffrey Bada, Robert Hazen and others debating Gunter Wachtershauser and Claudia Huber. After sifting through the technical jargon, the reader is left with the strong impression that both camps have essentially falsified each other. On the primordial soup side, the signers picked apart details in a paper by the metabolism-first side. Concentrations of reagants and conditions specified were called “implausible” and “exceedingly improbable.” Wachtershauser and Huber countered that the “prebiotic soup theory” requires a “protracted, mechanistically obscure self-organization in a cold, primitive ocean,” which they claim is more improbable than the volcanic environment of their own “pioneer organism” theory (metabolism-first). It’s foolish to expect prebiotic soup products to survive in the ocean, of all places, “wherein after some thousand or million years, and under all manner of diverse influences, the magic of self-organization is believed to have somehow generated an unspecified first form of life.” That’s some nasty jabbing between the two leading camps. 1Letters, “Debating Evidence for the Origin of Life on Earth,” Science, 16 February 2007: Vol. 315. no. 5814, pp. 937 - 939, DOI: 10.1126/science.315.5814.937c. Thank you, Robert Shapiro, for unmasking the lies we have been told for nearly a century. The Miller Experiment, the RNA World, and all the hype of countless papers, articles, popular press pieces and TV animations are impossible myths. We appreciate your help revealing why it’s all been hyped bunk. Now finish the job and show that yours is no better. You know you cannot stay with small molecules forever. You have not begun to bridge the canyon between metabolic cycles with small molecules to implausible genetic networks with large molecules (RNA, DNA and proteins). Any way you try to close the gap, you are going to run into the very same criticisms you raised against the RNA-World storytellers. You cannot invoke natural selection without accurate replication (see online book).bornagain77
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
F/N: see what I mean about how important it is to understand that the chaining and the side branches are "at right angles"? Here we have someone posing as knowledgeable, "correcting" those who correctly point to the significance of the distinction between the chaining and the contingency of what succeeds what in the chains, and then using this to suggest that the informational character of D/RNA is not real, and thus also of proteins. Yes, chemistry is used in the process, but the chemistry is used in ways that are similar to how magnetic domains are used to store information in a magnetic tape, or how the prongs along a Yale lock key's spine store info on how high or low, in what combination. KFkairosfocus
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
There's no contingency in sequence arrangements in DNA? I think that's your bias showing. Just to note, it seems more clear that codon to anticodon matching has more to do with necessity than contingency. This appears to make sense after browsing some articles and rereading frankin's comment at #297. Thanks for your congeniality. ;)Chance Ratcliff
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
Folks: We are now down to chemistry issues. And there is need to understand that the chaining and the information are at what for simplicity I have called right angles. Let's do the simpler one, proteins. By and large, in life forms, amino acids are grouped around a key C -atom, which (as in organic chemistry generally) has four bonds. One to a carboxylic acid, COOH. One to an amine, NH2. One to H, and one to a side group, which we can represent as R. Formula: H2N - CHR - COOH The chaining is effectively generic, as COOH and NH2 from two Aa's react, eliminating H2O. Any of the 20 main AAs of life (there are a lot of others) can chain to any of the others. This is part of the high contingency. The key to interesting behaviour is the R groups. From this we get folding patterns as AA's chain and may be chaperoned. The chaining is based on codons from DNA via RNA. It is not driven by the chaining chemistry that would force AA A to be followed by B then C etc. No information carrying capacity, and no flexibility as a class of biopolymers based on particular sequence. D and RNA are based on chaining in a similar string: -*-*-*- . . . Here, the key thing is a PO4 group and a sugar, ad this allows the chain to form. Again the chain and the side groups are "at right angles." (And no this is not intended to say anything about actual 3-D geometry, it is for simplification.) What happens in effect is that the sequence can store coded information at 4 states per position. Up to 2 bits. Which is where we get 64 3-letter codons, which code for start, elongate with particular AA's, and stop. In the ribosome, that allows the production of proteins based on converting 64 codes to start/stop and add particular AA's, about 20. All of this is well known, and it its known that the chaining is such that GCAT/U can follow in the string in any succession. The actual elongation happens through tRNA's,and it is the case that such have a coupler end that through CCA at the 3' end, is a "universal" connector to the AAs. So it is inherently possible to reprogram, using up codes for different purposes, indeed that has been done with some of the stop codons. Specialised enzymes load the tRNA's, based on general configuration, but the coupler is standard. What is happening above is that the chemistry is being highlighted in a way that distracts from the associated places where contingency is significant. Contingency is critical to information bearing character. Hence the summary: string structures, where the chaining chemistry is at effective "right angles" to the informational part that leads to function. KFkairosfocus
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
chance: franklin, it’s not just chemistry all the way down, it’s chemistry and contingency
No, it is not. Your lack if expertise is showing.franklin
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
current data suggest that the primary role for chaperone proteins is not solely to assist protein folding but to prevent protein aggregation prior to protein folding. This mechanism is also the reason partially denatured proteins (e.g., heat shock) are associated with upregulation of HSP but associated complexes of the chaperone:damaged protein. Many diseases are not so much associated with misfolded proteins (although they do occur) but as a result of protein aggregates.franklin
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
franklin, it's not just chemistry all the way down, it's chemistry and contingency. This is apparent in the myriad valid sequence arrangements of DNA codons. I'm asking if the mapping of codon to anticodon is contingent upon the configuration of the ribosome. I'm asking if charging tRNA is contingent upon the configuration of aaRS. I'm asking if it's possible to change the mapping with another contingent arrangement of some internal parts. If you don't know the answer, just say so; don't try to make my lack of expertise the basis for your not going into details. If you have details, produce them. If you don't, I won't hold it against you, or make claims that you shouldn't be discussing such things. Grandfather clocks are physics all the way down, until you try to get at the relationship between pendulum oscillations and hand movements. Then it's not just physics, but contingent arrangements of highly specific parts designed for a purpose to convert mechanical energy into a timekeeping apparatus.Chance Ratcliff
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
“I looked at the papers published on the origin of life and decided that it was absurd that the thought of nature of its own volition putting together a DNA or an RNA molecule was unbelievable.
ba77 I don't think the quoted sentence means what you think it means. Try reading it again with care this time.franklin
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
chance: How does the ribosome perform the matching?
On a serious not if you don't understand how this works or at least have a basic grasp of chemistry there is no way you can evaluate much in this debate. chance, it's chemistry all the way down. All tRNAs can bind, and likely do, but they don't all bind with equal affinity in the presence of any given codon. the weaker binding tRNA is easily displaced by one with greater kinetic affinity to form the complex that ultimately results in a conformational change with the end result of the amino acid being incorporated into the growing chain. It is this chemical process (binding affinity) that 'selects' the correct tRNA for any given codon. Have you ever wondered or explored how hemoglobin works? How (and why) it unloads carbon dioxide at the lungs/gills and binds oxygen at the lung/gills. or how hemoglobin 'knows' to deliver oxygen and pick up protons and carbon dioxide at metabolically active tissue? It is all chemistry which, in the case of hemoglobin, results in conformational changes (via chemistry through both active site and allosteric binding of substrates) which trigger a change in binding affinities for the various substrates.franklin
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
Franklin: How blatant is it when we see a refusal to acknowledge that a code is a code. Object code FYI is code. KFkairosfocus
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
Joe, not only do you have chaperoned folding, but prions that fold to more stable, propagating states that -- due to non-function -- create destructive diseases. Indeed there has been suspicion this is part of the Alzheimer's story. KFkairosfocus
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
Franklin, I suggest you learn about self replication based on coded stored information, joining a self replication facility to a metabolic automaton. The notion that there is some magical self-replicating molecule out there that does it all has no serious empirical foundation. The last one tried here at UD, the Polymerase chain rxn, simply revealed the need for the enzyme as is implied by the name. Oops. KFkairosfocus
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
CLIV, perhaps you would be interested in this video I found a while back: Learning from Bacteria about Social Networking (Information Processing) - video Excerpt: I will show illuminating movies of swarming intelligence of live bacteria in which they solve optimization problems for collective decision making that are beyond what we, human beings, can solve with our most powerful computers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJpi8SnFXHsbornagain77
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT
Mr Fox you state:
I was privileged to have some personal email correspondece with Professor Shapiro at about the time of the Dover trial. One thing he assured me of was that he was by no means a creationist.
And yet after the trial, and after his book, in the video shortly before he passed away, he stated:
“I looked at the papers published on the origin of life and decided that it was absurd that the thought of nature of its own volition putting together a DNA or an RNA molecule was unbelievable.
Go figure, nature didn't do it, and he is not a creationist,,, is there a third option? Perhaps Dawkins aliens?? :)bornagain77
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
Footnote to #289, Open questions, some restatement, etc. Is the mapping between codon and anticodon in the ribosome by direct necessity, or does it require a contingent and complex arrangement internally? Moreover, could the mapping be changed by a configurational change in the ribosome? The same question would apply with aaRS (aminoacyl tRNA synthetase). Is the mapping contingent? Could a different charging outcome be produced by reconfiguring key parts of the aaRS? It's the contingency -- the potential arbitrary mapping -- that's of interest here. I don't imagine invisible hands, but complex arrangements of matter for a purpose, supposing that different arrangements would produce different results, similar to any machine or computational environment.Chance Ratcliff
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
The sequence of residues in a protein is paramount!
But not sufficient- meaning it takes more than just the sequence to get the proper spatial configuration.Joe
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
franklin, feel free to straighten me out. You seem to know quite a bit about biochemistry. How does the ribosome perform the matching? Is there a chemical necessity at work that doesn't require a complex arrangement of proteins and RNA in the ribosome? I'm not being facetious, I'm interested. How does aaRS match an anticodon with an amino acid? What's the necessity relationship there?Chance Ratcliff
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT
chance: why mRNA codons don’t need to be matched with the corresponding tRNA
what process do you think is involved in tRNA binding and why one binds and not another? do you think there are little hands in there sorting through the soup of all tRNAs to find the correct one? or is it more likely it has to do with binding kinetics...perhaps even something along the lines of the kinetics of competitive binding.franklin
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
Alan @283, you were referring to gobbledegook at #259. Care to elucidate? And thanks for the pedantry, my comment was totally indecipherable without your correction.
The sequence of residues in a protein is paramount!
Of course it is, as is the mapping between mRNA codons and their corresponding tRNA anticodons, as is the charging of tRNA by aaRS.
*signs off*
C'mon Alan, one more drink before bedtime -- it can only make you funnier. :PChance Ratcliff
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
joe; Prove it. I would say you need a template and catalysts. Then a way to separate the strands.
well of course you need the template but not any catalyst. As far as separating strands a thermal gradient would work nicely.
joe: It is a very limited catalyst- not a do-everything molecule.
Where did I say it was a do-everything molecule? These discussions would proceed much better if you refrained from making stuff up and trying to attribute your fabrication to me or anyone else. As for limited activity much like Lenski's bacteria weak function can (and has) led to greater function via evolutionary processes.franklin
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
*signs off*Alan Fox
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
Robert Shapiro was professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University.
I was privileged to have some personal email correspondece with Professor Shapiro at about the time of the Dover trial. One thing he assured me of was that he was by no means a creationist. I endorse his book, "Planetary Dreams" as a good read.Alan Fox
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
So please tell us why the sequence of aminos[acids] is not significant
??? The sequence of residues in a protein is paramount!Alan Fox
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
And if you can straighten out his basic chemistry franklin here are a few more you can work on: Dr. Charles Garner on the problem of Chirality in nature and Origin of Life Research - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-04-12T17_21_16-07_00 Origin Of Life - No Realistic Explanations - Charles Thaxton PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5222490/ The Origin Of Life Requires Intelligence - Kirk Durston PhD - 2013 video http://www.metacafe.com/w/10335610 The Origin of Life - Lecture On Probability - John Walton - Professor Of Chemistry - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012749 The following is a very interesting 'origin of first self-replicating molecule' interview with one of the top chemists in America today: On The Origin Of Life And God - Henry F. Schaefer, III PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018204 Intelligent Design or Evolution? Stuart Pullen The chemical origin of life is the most vexing problem for naturalistic theories of life's origins. Despite an intense 50 years of research, how life can arise from non-life through naturalistic processes is as much a mystery today as it was fifty years ago, if not more. http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/php/book_show_item.php?id=106 "The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 in 10^340,000,000. This number is 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since there is only supposed to be approximately 10^80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!" (Professor Harold Morowitz, Energy Flow In Biology pg. 99, Biophysicist of George Mason University) In fact Dean Kenyon, who was a leading Origin Of Life researcher as well as a college textbook author on the subject in the 1970s, admitted after years of extensive research: "We have not the slightest chance for the chemical evolutionary origin of even the simplest of cells". Origin Of Life? - Probability Of Protein And The Information Of DNA - Dean Kenyon - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VhR2BHhxeo Life What A Concept! - Robert Shapiro – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=ku9wUbbPVYg#! Professor Robert Shapiro~ quote from preceding video “I looked at the papers published on the origin of life and decided that it was absurd that the thought of nature of its own volition putting together a DNA or an RNA molecule was unbelievable. I’m always running out of metaphors to try and explain what the difficulty is. But suppose you took Scrabble sets, or any word game sets, blocks with letters, containing every language on Earth, and you heap them together and you then took a scoop and you scooped into that heap, and you flung it out on the lawn there, and the letters fell into a line which contained the words “To be or not to be, that is the question,” that is roughly the odds of an RNA molecule, given no feedback — and there would be no feedback, because it wouldn’t be functional until it attained a certain length and could copy itself — appearing on the Earth.” Robert Shapiro was professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University. He is best known for his work on the origin of life, having written two books on the topic: Origins, a Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth and Planetary Dreams. etc.. etc..bornagain77
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
My BAD- The chains wouldn’t fold without them. Fold properly- ie take the shape required for their function.Joe
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
It’s true that chaperone proteins prevent mis-folding and aggregating in larger proteins and also act as heat shock proteins. They do not confer any additional information on how folding ensues.
The chains wouldn't fold without them. Genetic engineering has had only limited success, for example with insulin. Other transferred genes weren't so lucky because the chains did not fold (Sermonti "Why is a Fly Not a Horse?").Joe
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
Alan Fox,
"You appear to have a total miscomprehension of basic biochemistry!"
This tactic is common for you. Just announce, "You don't know what you're talking about!" and then leave it at that, as if the comment itself offers a correction. So please tell us why the sequence of aminos is not significant, or why mRNA codons don't need to be matched with the corresponding tRNA, or why tRNA doesn't need to be charged with the correct amino, or why the side chain interactions of residues are not relevant, etc. ;)Chance Ratcliff
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
If it started by design then it has evolved by design.
or the designer(s) realized they made a faulty product and abandoned the project and what we see is the end result of that initial broken design.
Broken or not, it is still evoltion by design.Joe
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
...especially the longer chains.
It's true that chaperone proteins prevent mis-folding and aggregating in larger proteins and also act as heat shock proteins. They do not confer any additional information on how folding ensues.Alan Fox
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
It does feel like a dialogue with the deaf.
Yes it does, Alan. You are incapable of understanding anything.Joe
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
1 6 7 8 9 10 18

Leave a Reply