In any case, Behe is just ONE person. The vast majority of ID proponents are not genuine supporters of Old Earth Evolutionism … but are simply trying to “game” the political system.
1 Like
My intention was not to “ignore” the bolded text in any gratuitous way but rather to emphasize that it is based on a premise that we don’t necessarily have to hold.
This is close to what I am suggesting - we should consider the potential ancestors of extant cells as an intermediate step towards extant cells but we cannot discard the possibility of needing to go further back into non-cellular systems that could have resulted in cells. There is no current mechanistic explanation for how life (as we know it, or even trivially simple self-replicating molecular machines) can emerge from non-life so I will not presume to give any testable examples of this. But it is well known that there are alternative hypotheses (e.g., the “RNA-first” approach) that begin with non-cellular self-replicating systems that could potentially exist without the much more complex scaffold of a cell.
So yes, I do think that we cannot exclude the possibility
And yes, it also my “position that this prior organization was capable of organizing the” precursor to the “translation apparatus” - this has to be the case if the non-cellular self-replicating system was ever to result in the precursor of cells as we know them today.
Depends on what you mean by “the need to specify any of its components” - I gave an example of a hypothetical molecular machine that could “specify” itself by self-replicating (i.e., making copies of itself) but this is likely a narrower definition of the term “specify” than what you have in mind.
Hi bio -
Thanks for stopping by with some intereresting throughts, and an interesting question. I’d like to offer a response that I hope you will find interesting.
First, I am not sure that mathematics and language qualify as fundamentally different systems. It is possible, I think, to regard math as a subset of language. Or at least closely related.
Secondly, even if I accept in arguendo that we are dealing with 3 distinct systems (language, math, DNA), they still constitute an extremely small sample size. The Bayesian logic you present is intriguing, but not very compelling unless I accept strong theological priors. And of course, the scientific community is not unanimous in accepting strong theological priors.
Finally, as others have mentioned, the ID enterprise seems to have different motivations than the scientific enterprise as elaborated by Francis Bacon. According to Bacon, we accept that God has designed the universe, but assume that all observable phenomena can be regarded as the working out of natural laws (ultimately based on God’s will) rather than signs of God’s miraculous, direct intervention outside of those laws. Even if we do not initially understand the framework of natural laws that explain the phenomena, the Baconian scientist assumes that such a framework exists and actively seeks it. On the other hand, the ID thinkers I have read (Behe, Meyers) short-circuit the scientific enterprise: the lack of a solid natural framework to explain biogenesis, for example, leads them to the conclusion that the only viable explanation is the direct intervention of an intelligent designer outside of any natural framework. The majority of the Christian science community seems to adopt Bacon’s perspective in this disagreement.
2 Likes
On what grounds should we deviate from the way all semiotic systems in nature specify objects? From your comments thus far, it appears to me that you just want to jump over any of the actual physics, and simply suppose that something happened somehow. And on those grounds, we needn’t bother with the details of the physical systems involved. The difficult issues may be avoided by generous assumptions about unknown objects and strategic reckoning. Is that a fair assessment? If not, then on what grounds should we deviate from the way all semiotic systems in nature operate?
To organize the extant cell, which you say your prior organization must logically do, it would need to be able to specify and create the translation apparatus of the extant cell. It would also need to provide the details of that construction in a encoded medium. In what way are you suggesting this unknown organization can achieve this feat, without the very processes it is attempting to explain?
I would like to make a comment on this interesting debate. From what has been posted, I gather that (I know this is simplifying a complicated debate, but for the sake of this discussion): (a) @Biosemiosis.org argues that a system has been identified which is central to any cell behaviour that science has studied, and without this system, we as scientists cannot contemplate life on this planet. We may then postulate some causal factor that is behind such a system out of necessity. (b) @Nuno argues that there may be as yet undiscovered matters that may enable us to further understand how life began, and these may not be obvious or observable from our current bio-studies. From this, we do not need to seek a cause behind the system in question, but simply continue to search and research. This view is underpinned by a belief that laws of science are capable of provided all explanations related to nature, including how life began.
If my understanding is correct, than I am inclined to find (a) as dealing with what we can observe - we can confidently claim that someone has performed a significant feat of bio-engineering, and this provides a realistic model for understanding cell-composition. Although (b) may provide an impetus for further research, it is unclear to me why bio-scientists should be prevented from speculating some causality behind the complexity and necessary aspects of cells. The initial speculations may be primitive, but this is to be expected. Perhaps an alternative view may be that both (a) and (b) may lead to further discoveries that expand the view of bio-scientists, to include a chain of causality behind life. This in itself will not, imo, lead to discovering God in nature, but rather provide deeper insights into nature. Theists would still believe that God is the cause of all things, while atheists will undoubtedly look for other ways to articulate their position.
1 Like
It is very common for scientific models to explain phenomena that we can no longer directly observe - we don’t need to “see” the moon being formed to accept a model for how it came about and we don’t need to “see” all common ancestors as living beings to accept common descent. What is expected is that the models a) be possible (it can happen) and b) be plausible (it was likely to happen given reasonable assumptions).
Certainly not. No one knows how life started on earth so obviously I cannot give you a detailed step-by-step description of how it happened. But that does not mean that we cannot discuss the requirements for a proof to show that it could or could not have occurred in a particular way. For example, we know that self-replicating RNA can exist (e.g., Lincoln and Joyce, Science 2009) and that self-replicating non-biological molecules can exist (e.g., Sadownik et al, Nature Chemistry 2016) so we cannot arbitrarily exclude the possibility that such types of mechanisms might have been involved in the precursors to the first cell. It is fortunate that @GJDS has joined the conversation as he may be able to contribute additional insights on the possibilities of combinatorial chemistry for generating these types of self-replicating molecular machines.
The type of self-replicating molecular machine I gave as a hypothetical example above is not unlike the self-replicating molecules in Sadownik et al, Nature Chemistry 2016. That said, I hope it is clear that all current models (mine, yours, or anyone else’s) are just speculative since no one has proposed, tested and demonstrated a detailed model for how things could have happened. As such, I could continue to speculate as to how self-replicating molecular machines could eventually construct a self-replicating translational machine but it would, of course, be just that - a poorly defined untested hypothesis.
My point is not that we would have to eternally “simply continue to search and research” and does not require “a belief that laws of science are capable of provided all explanations related to nature, including how life began”. The lasting beauty of the fundamental contributions of Turing’s Halting Problem or Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems includes the fact that they did not need to test all computer programs (in Turing’s case) nor instantiate every possible axiomatic system (in Godel’s case) to show that fundamental properties of the system were impossible to achieve. I do accept the possibility that ID could come up with a Turing/Godel-like proof that life on earth could not have started through any know physical processes. But as with Turing and Godel, the bar for accepting such fundamental proofs should be at least as high as it was for those theorems.
I tend to agree. As was briefly alluded to in the conversation with @Eddie, we can already find plenty of “irreducible complexity” in cosmological constants or in the laws of physics but that has not really played a significant role in how people approach religion. That said, if ID did succeed in proving design then we would have to face the reality of a “designer” so we would at least need to deal with not being alone in the universe.
1 Like
I am not seeking a discussion on ID, but I am interested in getting a clear idea of what science has provided to our understanding and insights of the bio-world, and how we may consider such insights. I have tried to follow work on templates and synthesis of simpler molecules that are presumed to be precursors of living/self-replicating systems, and have concluded the chemistry that requires the molecules needed for the templates and what-have you is just as difficult to envisage within a natural setting (non-artificial, without a chemist manipulating the reactions and synthesis) - so we end up with an infinite regress in our reasoning.
The point made by Biosemiosis seems relevant to me - we may avoid arguing for irreducible complexity or ID for the moment - the significance is that such interdependence of a complex system as outlined in this discussion, presents an impassible wall to any current notions on how bio-species have come about. I cannot see how we can argue past this. If I am right (and I am eager to be corrected), then we must accept an inability for science to argue for natural causes as we understand them at this point in time.
Where is the line at which the past becomes unobservable? Is it possible to “push that line further back”? Are these appropriate questions to ask?
I do not challenge @Biosemiosis.org’s premise that there needs to be some way for the information to be represented or that there needs to be some mechanism to replicate that information in “offspring” self-replicates. But if we agree effortlessly that singular cells could evolve and gain new structure and function that resulted in multi-organ organisms with brains that support reasoning then why would it be so far-fetched for self-replicating inorganic molecules to “evolve” into organic molecules?
For example, if a self-replicating inorganic scaffold S were to exist (e.g., along the lines of citations given above) then it does not seem far-fetched that it could become beneficial for such scaffolds to bind amino acids into their structure to gain additional function (I don’t mean to require teleology, the initial binding would probably not be beneficial but could become so). Once the “offspring” of S gain the ability to bind more and more amino acids, then it is possible that those bound amino acids begin to form polymers of their own on the molecular scaffold of S. Note that this non-ribosomal peptide assembly is very common in bacteria today - there are many known Non-Ribosomal Peptide Synthetase (NRPS) complexes that assemble new peptides directly without needing any ribosomal intervention. Of course, extant NRPSs are very large protein complexes so they cannot explain biogenesis but the principle remains - properly structured molecular scaffolds can assemble new peptides without requiring the ribosomal translational machinery. I do not necessarily see a conflict between this scenario and @Biosemiosis.org’s “interdependence of complex systems” but if there is a conflict then I’d be curious to see what it is.
Overall, while these are just musings in the realm of countless possibilities, the original point stands that research on the origins of life is highly unlikely to attempt to claim that the transition happened directly from self-replicating chemistry to fully-functional cells. There were likely many intermediate steps between these stages so finding the minimal functional cell according to extant phenotypes is only, at best, a small part of the answer to these questions. And this is at best - as I mentioned above, finding the “minimal bird” according to today’s species would be of very little utility in understanding the origin of birds from non-birds and before that from non-terrestrial animals (and so on, all the way back to the primordial cell).
1 Like
For me, the issue is, do we continue to look for mechanisms? Or do we…“just stop”?
Nuno,
I still don’t think you are grasping the physical distinctions. For your unknown organization to be the precursor to the extant cell it must (among other things) be able to produce the translation apparatus of the extant cell. In short it must be able to specify objects and place them under temporal control. In nature, the phenomenon of specification has a very distinct physical structure. For instance, I cannot take a bar magnet and use it to attract another bar magnet, and then say one “specified” the other. That is not how specification occurs in the natural world. Likewise, oxygen does not specify rust in the presence of iron. There is no object in the physical world that inherently specifies or represents any other object in the physical world. Yet (among other things) this is precisely what your organization must accomplish.
In nature, specification only occurs as the product of a specific type of organization. It requires one arrangement of matter to serve as a medium of information, and a second arrangement of matter to physically determine what is being specified or represented. And the organization of these two arrangements must preserve the natural discontinuity that exist between the medium of information and the temporal effect it specifies within the system. This discontinuous architecture (with one arrangement of matter specifying an effect, and another arrangement determining what the effect will be) is what allows the system the physical independence it requires to actually specify effects and outcomes that cannot be determined from the properties of the medium being translated (and otherwise would not occur). These are universal observations of the natural world; unambiguous examples of it have no end. And it is exactly the process taking place inside the cell.
So, in order for your unknown organization to organize the translation apparatus of the extant cell, it will need to build this system and provide the details of the system’s construction encoded in a transcribable memory. In Venter’s research, he reduced this burden to 195 genes, plus an existing translation apparatus and the provision of usable energy (metabolism through a controlled membrane). We can certainly argue if the 195 is a good minimal number for the extant cell – if that is where you think the issues lead – but frankly that is not really the case. Among those 195 genes, providing all the accessory molecules that choreograph the larger process, there will be ~20 that code for the aminoacyl tRNA synthetases (which establish the code while preserving the discontinuity required by the system). In E. coli, I think these generally run around 300-500 amino acids in length. Then there will be the ~20 tRNA themselves, the ribosomal subunits, and so on. Without these, along with a memory specifically coordinated to them, you cannot organize the extant apparatus.
Thus, let us propose that the first item on the list of requirements is a protein aaRS that starts with leucine followed by aspartic acid. How then will this unknown organization accomplish this task without the capacity to specify leucine among its alternatives, and place it under temporal control? Are we to assume that specification isn’t necessary after all – that all these constituents were mechanically attracted together in the numbers and specificity required to record the system in a transcribable memory, complete with a reading frame code?
Do we acknowledge the evidence, or not? Do we perhaps even allow the public to see that rationality and intellectual freedom have resurfaced in science?
Not to be flippant, but if someone asked me if a one-time event that occurred roughly 4 billion years ago, crosses the line into the deep unobservable past – I would simply ask them to make their point.
GJDS, I want to thank you for your words.
You make it clear that you wish to explore the issues without being tagged with ID baggage. As you might have gathered from my writing - I don’t care what someone calls it. The evidence is the only thing that matters.
Regardless of your conclusions, Thank you.
Ok - long posts make many points and it’s easy to lose track of details so let’s first focus on just two points: a) can self-replicating inorganic molecules exist and b) must these molecules have distinct substrates for storage and replication. As you can see from Sadownik et al, Nature Chemistry 2016 (as cited above), the answer to (a) is yes and the answer to (b) is no. Do you challenge these results?
I don’t mean to ignore your other points but this is a core point so it’s probably best to clarify this first.
1 Like
I think it’s unfortunate that you even ask me this question. It’s also ridiculous. Joyce’s paper on self-replicating RNA’s is linked from my website bibliography. Even more disappointing is you thinking that I would have some motivation for avoiding or denying a repeatable lab experiment. I have no reason to do either. Template replicators achieve neither specification nor translation. Thus they are not physically capable of a solution.
One of two things is happening here. You either just simply do not grasp the issues, or you absolutely grasp them and are making rhetoric in lieu of acknowledgment.
Given that you again skip over the salient issues, only to ask me about template-replicators, leaves me less reason to believe the former. I just don’t think you want to acknowledge the physical issues.
I see no reason for this outburst - there seemed to be some confusion about the core concepts under discussion so the focus was on taking small steps to clarify key matters before proceeding to higher-level concepts. I did not advance or even suggest any of the “insults” that you somehow perceived. There are many reasons why a specific paper need not apply to a conversation other subliminal suggestions of “mischievousness” - it can be besides the point, it may make assumptions that are not consistent with the topic of discussion, etc.
In any event, if this is not a “gracious dialogue about science and faith” then count me out.
Best of luck on your endeavors.
1 Like