Why aren't we designed better if there is an ID?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Why aren't we designed better if there is an ID?

Post by _DrW »

Hughes wrote:I agree it's the best hypothesis if the popular models for how the fossil record were formed are accurate. I don't think they are.

About abiogenesis, and the point was made that this particular scientist simulated the actual conditions on the earth. Now if that were the case, why is it that he had to add each element in a specific order to make his experiment work? It seems to me that the conditions of the earth aren't ever perfect, and more than often are violent and not friendly at all to life, let alone a fragile beginning of life.

And as Stephen Meyer points out the bigger issue is, "Nevertheless, this work does nothing to address the much more acute problem of explaining how the nucleotide bases in DNA or RNA acquired their specific information-rich arrangements..."

Hughes,

I am not sure if you are really as ill informed as you seem, supremely gullible, or if you are just amusing yourself. Since I don't know which it is, I am going to provide you with a quick summary, off the top of my head and without specific references, to work related to abiogenesis that has been done with RNA molecules.

There is a lot of recent work in this area, but since you seem to be high centered on "information", I will try to explain to you how this chemical information can come about in without 'intelligence'.

Here is a brief overview:

Individual molecules of RNA (monomers) have been shown to form spontaneously on certain kinds of clay substrates from chemicals that were readily available on the primordial Earth, and under conditions of temperature, pressure, pH and radiation flux that prevailed at the time. These monomers, when mixed together under the proper conditions of temperature, salinity, and pH, (again under conditions with existed for millions of years on Earth) will chemically bind together in specific ways to form short chains (or oligomers).

Now comes the interesting part. When these oligomers are mixed with more monomers, they react to form certain stable small polymers. When one analyses the resulting mixtures, they find that the most chemically stable forms tend to dominate in the mixture. These "successful" forms are the ones that are more likely to increase their relative concentration in the mixtures when new monomer material is added.

Did you get that? Chemical competition and "survival of the fittest" under conditions that existed on primordial Earth.

According to your definition, these stable short polymers carried "information". That is, they were able to find and react with new monomers as they became available in the mixture in order to grow, usually at the expense of less stable or less favored forms. If one changed the "environment" in the mixture (more of one type of monomer as "feed" than another, for example) then guess what - adaptation occurred. A new most stable structure, one more able to survive and grow in the new environment, became dominant.

And when other conditions changed (pH, overall monomer concentration, salt concentration, etc.,) without adding more monomer, new more stable forms were often built from the materials already present and at the expense of the forms less stable under the new conditions

Stephen Meyer has been wholly discredited in his assertions of the type you quote. His statements are mainly nonsense, and no mainstream scientist takes him seriously.\\

I just showed you how these RNA sequences acquired their "information rich arrangement", and it was done in a flask with chemicals. The information outcome (information generated) was dependent on what was available for the growing oligomers to "feed' upon. The conditions in this single laboratory flask existed in millions of locations for millions of years on the primordial Earth. Under these circumstances, primitive life was pretty much assured and abiogenesis (life from chemical reactions) may well have occurred thousands upon thousands of times at different times and dfferent locations.

When I have a little more time, perhaps I can flesh this out for you with some detail and references. Besides the story of the "information" molecules, micelles (precursors to primitive cell walls) and amino acids (precursors to proteins) have also been shown to form spontaneously under conditions that existed on the primordial Earth.

These also carry "information" according to your definition. For example, successful cell walls must pass certain kinds of molecules and exclude others (micelles do this naturally). Specific stable amino acid sequences perform all kinds of catalytic and structural tasks in living systems. This is not supernatural magic. It is just chemistry - plain and simple.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Why aren't we designed better if there is an ID?

Post by _Gadianton »

Actually Hughes, your point was,

Hughes wrote:yet you want me to believe that non-intelligence creates even better things than we can? If that were the case I think we'd see a little more evidence of that principle at work in the world.


To think such a scenario exists only exist because DNA has latent smartness misses that this was a convenient example, the same argument could be shown by an example using simple automata. What your argument is going end up being is that God has the ability to replicate what otherwise would happen anyway through evolution.

Either way, you are now admitting that evolution is true, even if it's because you think DNA is "smart." This is progress.
_Hughes
_Emeritus
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 11:53 pm

Re: Why aren't we designed better if there is an ID?

Post by _Hughes »

DrW wrote:Stephen Meyer has been wholly discredited in his assertions of the type you quote. His statements are mainly nonsense, and no mainstream scientist takes him seriously.\\

I just showed you how these RNA sequences acquired their "information rich arrangement", and it was done in a flask with chemicals. The information outcome (information generated) was dependent on what was available for the growing oligomers to "feed' upon. The conditions in this single laboratory flask existed in millions of locations for millions of years on the primordial Earth. Under these circumstances, primitive life was pretty much assured and abiogenesis (life from chemical reactions) may well have occurred thousands upon thousands of times at different times and dfferent locations.

When I have a little more time, perhaps I can flesh this out for you with some detail and references. Besides the story of the "information" molecules, micelles (precursors to primitive cell walls) and amino acids (precursors to proteins) have also been shown to form spontaneously under conditions that existed on the primordial Earth.

These also carry "information" according to your definition. For example, successful cell walls must pass certain kinds of molecules and exclude others (micelles do this naturally). Specific stable amino acid sequences perform all kinds of catalytic and structural tasks in living systems. This is not supernatural magic. It is just chemistry - plain and simple.


It appears you are arguing that self-sustaining autocatalytic chemosynthetic systems associated with amino acids predated RNA?

I was responding to the work done by Sutherland.

As for your contention that the information generated was of the same type that was needed for life, it seems to me, that even the simplest micro-organisms that we know require a minimum of two or three hundred genes (or a few hundred thousand base pairs of DNA). So, if this was simply just "chemistry" as you appear to claim, then why has it been so difficult to reproduce?

What I do find (again referring to Sutherland), as a chemist commented, "The work was very carefully done. The problem is that it was very carefully done."
_Hughes
_Emeritus
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 11:53 pm

Re: Why aren't we designed better if there is an ID?

Post by _Hughes »

Gadianton wrote:Actually Hughes, your point was,

Hughes wrote:yet you want me to believe that non-intelligence creates even better things than we can? If that were the case I think we'd see a little more evidence of that principle at work in the world.


To think such a scenario exists only exist because DNA has latent smartness misses that this was a convenient example, the same argument could be shown by an example using simple automata. What your argument is going end up being is that God has the ability to replicate what otherwise would happen anyway through evolution.

Either way, you are now admitting that evolution is true, even if it's because you think DNA is "smart." This is progress.


Nope. My argument is very simple.
Codes, and languages are only derived from intelligent sources.
DNA is a code and language.
DNA comes from an intelligent source.
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Why aren't we designed better if there is an ID?

Post by _DrW »

Hughes wrote:
DrW wrote:Stephen Meyer has been wholly discredited in his assertions of the type you quote. His statements are mainly nonsense, and no mainstream scientist takes him seriously.\\

I just showed you how these RNA sequences acquired their "information rich arrangement", and it was done in a flask with chemicals. The information outcome (information generated) was dependent on what was available for the growing oligomers to "feed' upon. The conditions in this single laboratory flask existed in millions of locations for millions of years on the primordial Earth. Under these circumstances, primitive life was pretty much assured and abiogenesis (life from chemical reactions) may well have occurred thousands upon thousands of times at different times and dfferent locations.

When I have a little more time, perhaps I can flesh this out for you with some detail and references. Besides the story of the "information" molecules, micelles (precursors to primitive cell walls) and amino acids (precursors to proteins) have also been shown to form spontaneously under conditions that existed on the primordial Earth.

These also carry "information" according to your definition. For example, successful cell walls must pass certain kinds of molecules and exclude others (micelles do this naturally). Specific stable amino acid sequences perform all kinds of catalytic and structural tasks in living systems. This is not supernatural magic. It is just chemistry - plain and simple.

It appears you are arguing that self-sustaining autocatalytic chemosynthetic systems associated with amino acids predated RNA?


What I said was that non-living chemical systems, including all the needed chemical components, substrates, and catalysts were in place on the primordial Earth for the spontaneous formation (synthesis) of amino acids, RNA nucleotide monomers, and fatty acids (including phospholipids) for making cell walls and cellular compartments.

When these chemical building blocks come in contact in solution (or on catalytic substrates in the case of RNA) simple RNA oligomers and small polymers are formed. Amino acids form oligomers and small proteins, and fatty acids (phospholipids) form micelles in water.

Amino acids, nucleic acids, and fatty acids (which can form micelles spontaneously in water) are the three classes of chemical building blocks needed to get life started.

As for your contention that the information generated was of the same type that was needed for life, it seems to me, that even the simplest micro-organisms that we know require a minimum of two or three hundred genes (or a few hundred thousand base pairs of DNA). So, if this was simply just "chemistry" as you appear to claim, then why has it been so difficult to reproduce?


When it comes to the "information" molecules you are so concerned about, synthetic nucleic acid polymers (constituting an artificial genome) can be substituted for the natural genome in living cells. The resulting "artificial" cells continue to be viable.

So we have the "information" molecule part solved. We can make simple genomes artificially, and they work well. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/science/21cell.html

As for making entire artificial living cells from scratch; that is a few years off. Many scientists who are concerned about this kind of thing think that we will be there in 15 -20 years.

Not so bad considering nature probably required hundreds of thousands (or millions) of years to get from the basic chemical building blocks to the simplest primordial prokaryotic cells
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Why aren't we designed better if there is an ID?

Post by _DrW »

Hughes wrote:Nope. My argument is very simple.
Codes, and languages are only derived from intelligent sources.
DNA is a code and language.
DNA comes from an intelligent source.

Hughes,

Your second assertion here ("Codes and languages are only derived from intelligent sources.") is clearly invalid and can be proven wrong fairly quickly, especially given your third assertion - that DNA is a code or language.

I described above a process for synthesis of small proteins and RNA oligomers from non-living systems.

Do you believe that you could distinguish an amino acid or RNA base sequence that was formed naturally by a non-living system from one having the same chemical structure that was formed artificially in the lab, from one that was formed by a living cell? Without highly sophisticated instrumentation, you could not tell the difference and, more importantly, neither can a living cell.

Perhaps you could explain to us how it is that the spontaneously formed amino acid or nucleotide sequences acquire the "information" you claim they have without the the benefit of being synthesized by some "intelligence".
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
Post Reply