Oh yes, let’s do stick with the scientific method.
To organize the kind of heterogeneous cell I’m talking about does not require the capacity to specify something in the sense you are using.
What is the name of the cell?
It’s a hypothetical cell, as I’ve told you repeatedly. I don’t know if it could exist or not. You seem to be saying that it’s impossible. I want to know why it’s impossible.
1 Like
Yeah, no kidding. I’ve already told you it’s a non-falsifiable proposition. It’s the kind of thing you use as counter-evidence when you don’t want to address real data. Yes, I am acutely aware that you are using a hypothetical standard to navigate through this encounter, and I am also acutely aware that you keep dragging up “possible/impossible” regardless of what I say. What I am fascinated by is your carelessness with regard to reason and evidence. So when our universal experience demonstrates that a living thing is a heterogeneous entity, and that a medium is required to organize it (written throughout every biology textbook on the planet), but you rebut to say “No, I can imagine a hypothetical instance where this is not the case”, what is it about your imagination that allows you to think that you’ve provided any sort of decisive content or standard? You seem desperate to say that I haven’t made my case, but you’ve base this on a) avoidance of what I’ve actually said, b) an imaginary non-falsifiable counter-example, and c) misrepresentation of my statements with regard to the RNA world. This all serves your rhetorical convenience, but it’s a really poor standard for science.
Yes, I know you told me that. But you also told me that it’s a false proposition. Those are contradictory claims. When I press you on the second claim, you resort to the first. (And you’re wrong, by the way: with sufficient knowledge of RNA chemistry, it should be possible to falsify the hypothesis of an RNA-based cell. Not any time soon, to be sure, but possible nonetheless.)
When you say something is impossible – and that’s what you said initially – then I’m not the one dragging up “possible/impossible”.
You seem not to understand something pretty basic here. When you claim something is required by universal physical principles, then you have to show that there are no possible exceptions. That’s what the claim means. “Every example we’ve seen so far” does not establish that kind of claim, especially when the number of cases we’ve seen is one (the kind of cell shared by all extant life on Earth). The fact that RNA world also happens to be the dominant hypothesis for a stage of early life might give you pause, but I suspect it won’t.
How many scientific papers have you published? I ask because your behavior here looks like no scientific discussion I’ve ever seen.
Assuming that the owner of biosemiosis.org is commenting epynomously here, I came up with [this about our anonymous friend][1]:
I blog on the web under the pseudonym Upright Biped. I am not a scientist, and I make no pretense to having a scientific background. I have a 30+ year career in the major media, serving most recently as Research Director and in Programming. My background includes stints with CBS Stations Group, Tribune Broadcasting, News Corp, New World Communications, Sinclair Broadcasting, and other affiliate television and radio stations.
A whois lookup reveals that the registrant for the biosemiosis.org domain used a registration proxy.
[1]: http://complexitycafe.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=102
1 Like
Here is what I’ve said when asked directly about this, the first time:
It should be remembered that this is not fundamentally about RNA, or DNA or proteins. This is first and foremost about organization. There is no physical property of a representation that makes it a representation. It only gains that status by being organized as such in a system.
And you really don’t need to ask me if I think the RNA world is possible. It’s a non-falsifiable proposition, and in the end it doesn’t matter what I think anyway. Anyone is free to think of it as they wish.
And the second time:
As you may have noticed, I did not say anything about what was and was not possible with RNA. In fact I said just the opposite; the RNA world hypothesis is non-falsifiable. It is not possible to say that it is not possible. But an RNA molecule that replicates itself creates its product based on local dynamics. A semiotic translation system doesn’t.
And the third time:
How does the RNA encode a protein, and how does the other RNA translate it?
And the fourth time:
The RNA world can include a representational medium if it is organized to be so. Again, there is nothing about the physical properties of RNA, or DNA, or protein that makes them a representation. They must be organized in a system that establishes them as representations, where the details of the system’s construction are simultaneously encoded in the representations being created.
I have not said that the RNA world is impossible. You have now resorted to verifiable falsehoods.
Surely you are not this naïve about the human will.
What I said was that it is not possible to organize the heterogeneous cell without semiosis. I stand by that claim and am willing to defend it. But you are not interested in exploring that. You are clearly equivocating here. You want to say instead that I’ve claimed the RNA world is impossible. This equivocation plays a substantial role in avoiding the evidence, so you refuse to give it up.
Nothing can be done about that.
Let us put this to rest. This claim of “universal physical principles” appears nowhere in anything I have said. It’s a positioning statement that is all yours.
Here is what I said: “So, without these IC relationships, the system could not physically accomplish what must be done, and the living cell could not be organized. It is a dictate of physical law.”
This is another point I am happy to defend, but alas, this (again) is part of the evidence you wish to avoid.
Nothing can be done about this either.
Hi B.org - Perhaps a more productive way to frame the discussion would be: is a semiotic translation system the only possible mechanism by which life can exist? Or can a local dynamics-based system provide a mechanism?
Well, in your first post you did say this:
You will probably make more progress by distinguishing this last statement (“…the living cell could not be organized…”) from the first (“I have not said that the RNA world is impossible…”). To me, they seem like contradictions. But maybe there is a way to square them. On the other hand, making accusations against the character of someone who’s having a hard time squaring 2 puzzling statements (that, at first glance, seem contradictory) doesn’t seem like a productive strategy. I also think of St. Paul’s admonition to gentleness in situations like this.
In both science and theology, it is sometimes necessary to defer certain judgments until a future when more data and/or better tools exist. (“Now we see dimly as in a mirror…”) In 1687, not even Newton could tell whether planetary orbits were being perturbed by angels or by some as yet unidentified natural cause. It took almost 100 years before technology and data could reach the point where Herschel was able to announce the discovery of Uranus, which pretty much solved the mystery.
Given this historical account–and many, many others like it–it doesn’t seem so unreasonable to hope that biochemists will some day have the tools and data to falsify the hypothesis of an RNA-based cell.
Well, you did say this:
Again, it’s difficult for me to reconcile saying, on the one hand, something is not required by universal physical principles, but on the other hand, it is a dictate of physical law. To me, required by universal physical principles is synonymous with a dictate of physical law.
Grace and peace…
To gloss this conversation: When I hear someone say, “I don’t have a professional science background, but I’ve logically deduced the following discovery which has dramatic consequences for how we see science and faith”, I’ve learned to ignore them. They’re a dime a dozen. This isn’t meant to be a personal slight, but a statement of fact based on encountering hundreds of such individuals since working at BioLogos.
Experts and expertise matters. For every “average person” who has a brilliant insight bereft of expertise, there are thousands who have no idea what they’re talking about. I study these issues for a living, but when it comes to science, I freely admit that I’m in need of experts to help me understand what’s going on. BioLogos exists to be a community of scientifically-informed Christians and experts who help them be scientifically informed. This is what this article is about (to get back to the original topic).
2 Likes
Nice job Brad. You found a way to be hilariously disingenuous while calling me a fraud. You do realize, don’t you, that it’s a logical fallacy to ignore what I say, just to attack me instead? And does it matter that no supporting material observation I’ve made is even in the slightest bit controversial? Here they are:
1) the arrangement of bases in each codon results in alternate amino acids being presented for binding
2) the aaRS establishes the amino acid-to-anticodon association
3) the amino acid-to-anticodon association is spatially and temporally isolated from the pairing of codons to anticodons during translation.
4) the arrangement of the bases in each codon is independent of the minimum total potential energy state of mRNA.
5) the constraints of a reading-frame code (Crick) are necessary to proper translation
four examples:
5a) initiation at a specific location
5b) direction of reading
5c) stop function
5d) three bases in a codon
Will you check these out? Of course not. People do what profits them, and it does not profit you. What you did profits you. See how that works?
And as far as the semiotic perspective, all I have done is provide a retelling of what semioticians, particular physicists, have been publishing in peer-review for half a century. And I’ve provided link to the data in the Bibliography on my site.
Will you explore it? Of course not. You got your cut in, why bother.
So the reason that thousands of genetic scientists have NOT seen these implications, but that YOU have, is that your judgment is not clouded by “the System” and the money of “The Man” ?
@Biosemiosis.org, Let’s suppose you are absolutely correct . . . can you make a 1 or 2 sentence summary of what these findings change?
Hello Chris, thanks for posting the link to ComplexityCafe.
Bio: I have not said that the RNA world is impossible. You have now resorted to verifiable falsehoods.
Chris: Well, in your first post you did say this:
Bio: So, without these IC relationships, the system could not physically accomplish what must be done, and the living cell could not be organized. It is a dictate of physical law.
Those two statements are not in contradiction. The first statement is simply a fact that I did not say the RNA world (i.e. a self-replicating RNA) was impossible. In fact, I said it was not possible to say it was not possible. The second statement comes from an explanation of how a semiotic system uses two arrangements of matter to specify something. Explaining a semiotic system does not falsify the possibility of an unknown self-replicating RNA.
…admonition to gentleness…
Yes, noted.
George I know you are just desperate to attack. The fact that Francis Crick demonstrated that the gene contained a “reading-frame code” in 1961 should not stop you. Neither should the fact that von Neuman described the logical necessity of representationalism in self-replication before DNA was even understood. And don’t be bothered that Pattee has been saying the “life is matter controlled by symbols” since the late 1960’s. .
Ignore the data George, just attack the messenger.
I’ve read every single post you’ve made on this site (I’m the moderator, it’s my job) and browsed your website. So I’m not ignoring what you said. And speaking of these posts, I’ve observed that @glipsnort, who is a well-respected and credentialed scientific voice on this Forum who has been repeatedly praised by our official fellow of biology, Dennis Venema, has not found your arguments convincing (to put it mildly). And you’ve responded by lecturing him on what is “scientific” and what isn’t.
Of course I haven’t read as exhaustively as you have on these matters. What I’m saying is that you have not yet given me a reason to see you any differently than the myriad others like you who think they know better than the experts.
I’ve witnessed firsthand the damage that is done when scientific expertise is not respected at the first and final word on scientific matters. So yes, I’m a little chippy when it comes to these sorts of discussions.
Oh, and immediately inferring motives on the part of everyone who criticizes you is not helping your case.
1 Like
Hey, Bio, lighten up. I’m trying to get to the core of the question … and if you are on the level, then my efforts will benefit you.
I am as light as a feather, George, and you’ve already asked me this question. I cannot tell that the answer has altered your approach one iota. As a possible course of action, you could read something in the material and ask me to clarify it instead.
[quote]George:
Well, apparently, you must be SWAMPED with people who understand your every word.
I am not one of them. Can you summarize that incredibly complex page into a single sentence or two? I understand a sentence here or there… but don’t know what the point is …
Bio:
Yes.
-
When a cell translates genetic information to reproduce itself, it exhibits properties that a physicist can identify among all other physical systems.
-
That system can only be identified one other place anywhere in the cosmos - that is in recorded language and mathematics.[/quote]
A summary sentence from you would ASSIST me, and others, in understanding whether you are onto something.
Refusing to explain yourself only hurts you.
George
Thanks to Brad, for moderating this thread (which if I remember correctly is actually about Michael Denton’s book that I reviewed). I do not believe that Brad is saying that only scientists should be allowed to comment here, but that expertise must be acknowledged. I have often made analogous remarks concerning theological issues, and must say that most actual theologians, or those with actual theological knowledge have generally been quite gentle in the way they let me know that, yes, that was very insightful, but if you read, this and that the other, you will find both agreements and disagreements. I always appreciate this kind of gentle reminder that I have no idea what Im talking about.
I think Steve has taken a pretty similar approach to Biosemiosis. He has not been dismissive, and has tried to steer the discussion into one where actual scientific issues can be discussed. I commend Steve for not losing his patience.
I also would ask Biosemiosis to consider the following points. Your list of facts about how the translation system works are quite accurate, but some of them (as pointed out by Ben in another thread) are a bit outdated. Biology is a messy science. I have called it a lawless science, due to the paucity of mathematical laws in biology. No sooner do we think we have a rule (eg. the stop function is required) than we find exceptions. So hard laws are difficult to find.
Similarly it isnt easy to proclaim that anything is impossible or not falsifiable. RNA world is indeed (as Steve said) eminently falsifiable, and some scientists have claimed that it has already been falsified. Even worse, the very notion of replicators first is disclaimed as false by many origin of life researchers who hold to metabolism first (Robert Shapiro, most famously).
I tend to agree that a representational code is likely a good example of real irreducible complexity, but that is my philosophical view, and I know it could be disproven tomorrow. This is the tough thing about actual science (which is not at all equivalent to logic, or to what seems must be true). There wasnt a single soul who thought the human genome would be limited to 20,000 genes (less than rice) before the darn data told us that was the truth. Active research scientists like Steve, Ben, myself and many others here, learn that lesson with years of experience doing science.
So, what Steve, (and Brad) and I are telling you, Bio, is that while your ideas are very interesting and useful, they should not be couched in the absolute terms you use. Using words like impossible, or not falsifiable, or analogies to physics, or general law-like statements, are not very useful in biology, unless you have very solid and very up to date evidence.
Getting back to the original subject of this thread, that is exactly why I, and Darrell Falk, and even to some extent, Larry Moran, have been pleasantly surprised by Denton’s new book. He does not fall into that trap, that Steve has been trying to extricate you from. I suggest reading it.
1 Like
Brad, go have Dennis explain to you which of these is false:
.