The Minimal Genome Project: "Here we report a new cell"

[Biosemiosis.org]

Nuno,

I have no desire whatsoever to offend you in any way, but I don’t perceive my reaction to your last post as an “outburst”. Let me tell you what I am getting here:

Nuno: Do you realize that researchers, under tight conditions can synthesize short RNA scripts that will tie each others ends together and “replicate” all by themselves, as long as the researchers continue to feed them the pre-manufactured parts? The reaction is indefinite, and it’s just straight up chemistry.

Bio: Well that’s fascinating. But what you are going to need is to create ~20 non-dynamic associations that will require ~20 highly-conserved proteins to establish those associations. These could realistically be upwards of 300 to 400+ amino acids each, plus you’ll need 20 passive RNA adapter molecules to implement the system. Also, none of this will matter one bit if you don’t also have a medium of information whose arrangement is itself non-dynamic, and the ordering of this medium must correspond to the associations you’ve created, and you also need probably 40-50 (maybe less) other small molecules to orchestrate the system. And we won’t even consider here the energy needs of the system, but we can’t ignore that spatially-oriented mediums require that reading-orientation be set by the system, so you’ll need those provisions as well. All these things will be required in the same place and time, just to get the system to function – regardless of what comes next. This system, or something very close to it, is what is required to have the informational capacity required to establish the cell cycle.

Nuno: You don’t deny that RNA’s can self replicate do you? This is a core issue. As long as they keep feeding the parts, they really do.

In any case, I apologize if you feel put out. And as before, I thank you for the conversation.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

You asked me specifically about Behe, so only “one person” needed to be referenced in order to respond to you.

@Eddie,

And yet you aren’t interested in presenting a concise discussion of Behe’s views. You want me to read books and books… which is admirable.

But not really on point to my situation. What’s the point of reading books and books when in fact, the overall point is still valid: Intelligent Design is not “mostly people who believe in Evolution” …

The Intelligent Design movement is MOSTLY occupied by people who DENY evolution. FULL STOP.

I don’t see how you can credibly deny it. You’ve invested an AWFUL LOT of your interests in Behe… as the EXEMPLAR of the right kind of believer … but in the end he is just ONE MAN.

BioLogos is a MULTITUDE.

Perhaps we could have all benefited from learning more about Behe … but you were too busy trying to shame me, trying to bully me … trying to have everything your way.

And so now you have nothing - - - Behe is NOT the Intelligent Design movement. As far as anyone can tell … Intelligent Design is mostly a creature of the Young Earth Creationists.

[GJDS]

I think we all agree that our comments on this subject are “just musing” and consequently, we may come up with countless possibilities regarding the origins of life. The point, however, is the discussion regarding the synthetic entity, as it is a solid observation made under clear and well defined conditions.

[fmiddel]

@Eddie

Why pose stark alternatives in this way?

I would avoid posing such a sharp pair of alternatives. I would say: It is legitimate to investigate hypothetical natural mechanisms for the origin of life. So scientists don’t need to “just stop.” On the other hand, scientists have no right to make the a priori assumption that life arose through wholly natural means, so the possibility must always be kept in mind that the search for natural mechanisms may be a fool’s errand. Within that kind of humble acknowledgment, it seems to me that hypothetical natural mechanisms can be investigated with proper sobriety.

That’s kind of the choice, isn’t it? Continue to look…or not? I’m not sure why you would characterize that as “such a sharp pair of alternatives.” To continue to investigate “with proper sobriety” is still…continuing to investigate.

There’s no halfway. There’s no “kind of looking…”

[fmiddel]

@Biosemiosis.org

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.

Not to be flippant, but what if it were 100 years ago? 100,000 years ago? Where’s the line?

If there’s evidence of an occurrence, there is evidence that can be evaluated. If not, then it’s sheer speculation.

So…where’s the line? Where is that line between “observable and unobservable”?

[Biosemiosis.org]

@GJDS

The point is, however, is the discussion regarding the synthetic entity, as it is a solid observation made under clear and well defined conditions.

Agreed.

It is the experimental grounding that interests me. It is why I posed the questions I did in the OP.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie,

Sorry… I just couldn’t get through that post… I commend you for making it much shorter than your earlier ones… but even short posts have to deliver some kind of credibility …

[GJDS]

Scientists will always ask questions and discuss hypothesis - so I cannot see an issue - just why would this subject matters cause anyone to … “just stop”?

[Chris_Falter]

@Eddie

So scientists don’t need to “just stop.” On the other hand, scientists have no right to make the a priori assumption that life arose through wholly natural means

Hi Eddie - Hope your Monday was delightful.

You realize that these 2 statements pretty much contradict each other, right? If you start with the a prior assumption that the subject you are researching cannot be explained by natural means, you have already stopped doing science.

Also, even the most ardent NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria, for readers unfamiliar with the acronym) proponents do not speak of “wholly natural mechanisms.” Rather, the ultimate causes are bracketed out when studying and explaining the proximate ones. In other words, the fact that something like planetary motion can be predicted thousands of years in advance by the equations of physics does not exclude non-natural causality. You can subscribe 100% to the physics explanations and also subscribe to the idea that God created the universe and everything in it, and He established the laws of physics that explain planetary motion.

@Eddie

Small point: it’s Meyer, not Meyers.

Thanks, I always appreciate help.

@Eddie

Larger point: Behe has never said that “the only viable explanation is the direct intervention of an intelligent designer outside of any natural framework.” Where have you found such statements? Or are you reading them into his work?

I found the idea in Darwin’s Black Box, which I enthusiastically read cover-to-cover back in the day. Behe stated that many biochemical structures exhibit irreducible complexity that cannot be explained by any natural framework, forcing us to conclude that they are the handiwork of an intelligent designer. This seems so obvious that I suspect I do not need to dig up some quotes to prove this point; but I will if I have to.

@Eddie

So modern science was not originally committed to naturalistic explanation regarding origins. And what applied to the solar system applied a fortiori to the origin of life and man.

And yet, 400 years later, 99.999% of astronomers disagree with the belief of Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, and Newton that the solar system was the product of the direct intervention of an intelligent designer outside of any natural framework. They find that the origin of the solar system is extremely well explained by natural, scientific causation, starting with the Big Bang, continuing with cosmic inflation, etc.

So you just made my point for me. Origins that seem beyond the means of science today could be very well explained by science in the future.

@Eddie

There is a danger that Christians who are too eager to show they are “scientific” (by harmonizing theology with current science) will harmonize theology with a science that is becoming outdated.

Do you really think that accepting the scientific consensus of evolution, or the possibility of abiogenesis, threatens the integrity of theology? The idea that life can explained in terms of natural causation no more threatens God’s role as creator than the idea that planetary motion can be explained in terms of natural causation, in my opinion.

[fmiddel]

@Eddie

But it’s to continue to investigate without swagger or presumption, without assuming what the outcome will be. And that’s not how the origin-of-life scientific community has operated. They haven’t been asking whether life could have come about by a blind search, with no intelligence or planning involved; they have been asking how life came about by a blind search, with no intelligence or planning involved. They’ve tacitly assumed a “Yes” answer to the “whether” question, and the only question they regard as open is the “how” question. That’s why philosophers need to step in and give certain overconfident biologists a few lessons in the epistemology of science, and the epistemology of origins.

That is irrelevant to what you called “a sharp pair of alternatives.”

“Do we keep looking”? That’s all I’m asking. I think you are making a leap when it comes to the presumed “whether” question. I’m not sure that question can even be answered scientifically or not. The question relevant to science is “how” (regardless of an individual’s scientist’s perspective on “whether”). Even being wrong about “whether” does not negate the validity of the “how” questions and answers.

[fmiddel]

@GJDS

Scientists will always ask questions and discuss hypothesis - so I cannot see an issue - just why would this subject matters cause anyone to … “just stop”?

Case in point: the flagellum. An example of “irreducible complexity”? If so, do we investigate how this came about?

[Biosemiosis.org]

What scientists study will remain as it has always been – up to the research interests of the individual scientist. He/She will decide what questions he wants to explore and what methodologies he’d like to use to explore those questions. Just as it has always been.

This notion that the members of humanity (and the scientists among those members) are monolithic seems rather obviously flawed. We do not agree to anything that I can think of. Perhaps the value of toilet paper, but even that is in question I suppose.

I wonder what the motivation is to continue, over and over again, to ask questions under what is very obviously a flawed premise. What is to be gained?

[beaglelady]

@Eddie

But it’s to continue to investigate without swagger or presumption, without assuming what the outcome will be. And that’s not how the origin-of-life scientific community has operated. They haven’t been asking whether life could have come about by a blind search, with no intelligence or planning involved; they have been asking how life came about by a blind search, with no intelligence or planning involved.

It is the job and duty of scientists to search for natural explanations for natural phenomena. And both believer and non-believer can join in the search.

[fmiddel]

@Biosemiosis.org

What scientists study will remain as it has always been – up to the research interests of the individual scientist. He/She will decide what questions he wants to explore and what methodologies he’d like to use to explore those questions. Just as it has always been.

This notion that the members of humanity (and the scientists among those members) are monolithic seems rather obviously flawed. We do not agree to anything that I can think of. Perhaps the value of toilet paper, but even that is in question I suppose.

I wonder what the motivation is to continue, over and over again, to ask questions under what is very obviously a flawed premise. What is to be gained?

What is specifically to be gained by positing a Designer?

[Biosemiosis.org]

The answer to this question is so obvious its hard to believe someone would ask it.

If something was designed, then you would want to conclude design in order for your understanding of nature to comport with reality. If something was not designed, then you would want to conclude not designed in order for your understanding of nature to comport with reality. And if something could not be determined, then you would want access to the best available evidence in order for your understanding of nature to be based on the best available evidence. Seems rather reasonable doesn’t it?

[fmiddel]

@Biosemiosis.org

The answer to this question is so obvious its hard to believe someone would ask it.

If something was designed, then you would want to conclude design in order for your understanding of nature to comport with reality. If something was not designed, then you would want to conclude not designed in order for your understanding of nature to comport with reality. And if something could not be determined, then you would want access to the best available evidence in order for your understanding of nature to be based on the best available evidence. Seems rather reasonable doesn’t it?

Okay. But then what?

We have two options of conclusions. But what is specifically to be gained by coming to the one conclusion over the other? In other words, if our model of reality better conforms to reality…then what?

[Biosemiosis.org]

A reasoned understanding of reality is a virtue on its own. I’m not sure it needs any further justification.

Perhaps you disagree?