Complexity of life

[Leprechaun]

"“Ribozyme engineering” experiments have failed to produce RNA replicators capable of copying more than about 10 per cent of their nucleotide base sequences" Meyers

concludes this from the article he references in the letter when it clearly states in said article's abstract

"Its polymerization is also quite accurate: when primers extended by 11 nucleotides were cloned and sequenced, 1088 of 1100 sequenced nucleotides matched the template. "
Also,

"Furthermore, extension was predominantly by the Watson-Crick match to the template. When primers that were fully extended using the template coding for 11 nt were cloned and sequenced, 89 of 100 sequences precisely matched the template. Of the 1100 residues sequenced, only 12 were mismatches (Fig. 4C), implying an overall Watson-Crick error rate of 0.011 per nucleotide. Thus, the round-18 ribozyme can accurately use information from an RNA template and all four nucleoside triphosphates to extend an RNA primer by a complete turn of an RNA helix."

It is evident that with passing time we become ever closer to generating self-replicating particles, a precursor to life. To deny this is becoming increasingly intellectually dishonest. Furthermore, I still do not comprehend this 'information' argument. Are you implying that RNA (or something similar) couldn't spontaneously generate?

[Leprechaun]

This is probably the part of the article he is referencing:

"How could general polymerase activity have arisen on early Earth? If emergence of the first RNA replicase ribozyme coincided with the origin of life, it would have had to arise in a single step from prebiotically synthesized RNA, without the benefit of Darwinian evolution. Our shortest construct retaining activity was 165 nt, with about 90 nt involved in important Watson-Crick pairing and at least another 30 critical nucleotides (23). Ribozymes with the efficiency, accuracy, and other attributes of an RNA replicase might have to be even larger than this. However, current understanding of prebiotic chemistry argues against the emergence of meaningful amounts of RNA molecules even a tenth this length (1). This difficulty is anticipated by those who propose that life, and Darwinian evolution, began before RNA. Some speculate that in this “pre-RNA world,” life was based on an RNA-like polymer, yet to be identified, that possessed the catalytic and templating features of RNA but also a more plausible prebiotic synthesis (1). The pre-RNA life forms presumably later developed the ability to synthesize RNA, facilitating the emergence of an RNA replicase ribozyme, which in turn enabled the transition to the RNA world."

[DannyM]

"Furthermore, extension was predominantly by the Watson-Crick match to the template. When primers that were fully extended using the template coding for 11 nt were cloned and sequenced, 89 of 100 sequences precisely matched the template. Of the 1100 residues sequenced, only 12 were mismatches (Fig. 4C), implying an overall Watson-Crick error rate of 0.011 per nucleotide. Thus, the round-18 ribozyme can accurately use information from an RNA template and all four nucleoside triphosphates to extend an RNA primer by a complete turn of an RNA helix."

Please link me to what you're quoting from. You seem happy to cite 'information' when it suits you. You did the same in your 'wiki' quote on the previous page. Do you understand what you are quoting?

Again...

"Everything we know about RNA catalysts, including those with partial selfcopying capacity, shows that the function of these molecules depends on the precise arrangement of their information-carrying constituents (ie, their nucleotide bases). Functional RNA catalysts arise only once RNA bases are specifically arranged into information-rich sequences – that is, function arises after, not before, the information problem has been solved. For this reason, invoking prebiotic natural selection in an RNA World does not solve the problem of the origin of genetic information; it merely presupposes a solution in the form of a hypothetical, information-rich RNA molecule capable of copying itself."

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 986702.ece

It is evident that with passing time we become ever closer to generating self-replicating particles, a precursor to life.

Do you see the irony in your comment above?

To deny this is becoming increasingly intellectually dishonest. Furthermore, I still do not comprehend this 'information' argument. Are you implying that RNA (or something similar) couldn't spontaneously generate?

Intellectually dishonest? Do you understand the genetic information required for life? Until you understand and overcome your philosophical presuppositions then I'm afraid you are always going to believe that life can 'spontaneously generate' itself...And no, I'm not 'implying' genetic information couldn't spontaneously generate - I'm asserting this CATEGORICALLY. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

[Leprechaun]

"Furthermore, extension was predominantly by the Watson-Crick match to the template. When primers that were fully extended using the template coding for 11 nt were cloned and sequenced, 89 of 100 sequences precisely matched the template. Of the 1100 residues sequenced, only 12 were mismatches (Fig. 4C), implying an overall Watson-Crick error rate of 0.011 per nucleotide. Thus, the round-18 ribozyme can accurately use information from an RNA template and all four nucleoside triphosphates to extend an RNA primer by a complete turn of an RNA helix."

Please link me to what you're quoting from. You seem happy to cite 'information' when it suits you. You did the same in your 'wiki' quote on the previous page. Do you understand what you are quoting?

Again...

"Everything we know about RNA catalysts, including those with partial selfcopying capacity, shows that the function of these molecules depends on the precise arrangement of their information-carrying constituents (ie, their nucleotide bases). Functional RNA catalysts arise only once RNA bases are specifically arranged into information-rich sequences – that is, function arises after, not before, the information problem has been solved. For this reason, invoking prebiotic natural selection in an RNA World does not solve the problem of the origin of genetic information; it merely presupposes a solution in the form of a hypothetical, information-rich RNA molecule capable of copying itself."

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 986702.ece

It is evident that with passing time we become ever closer to generating self-replicating particles, a precursor to life.

Do you see the irony in your comment above?

To deny this is becoming increasingly intellectually dishonest. Furthermore, I still do not comprehend this 'information' argument. Are you implying that RNA (or something similar) couldn't spontaneously generate?

Intellectually dishonest? Do you understand the genetic information required for life? Until you understand and overcome your philosophical presuppositions then I'm afraid you are always going to believe that life can 'spontaneously generate' itself...And no, I'm not 'implying' genetic information couldn't spontaneously generate - I'm asserting this CATEGORICALLY. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

I quoted from the very article that Stephen Meyers quoted from in the article you presented.

It is clear that a self-replicating molecule could spontaneously arise, this is all the 'information' that is required, once this happens all else follows. When I said 'generated' I clearly meant that in conditions replicating those of the young earth we come ever closer to simulating the creation of life.

What is this 'information' you are talking about? Do you mean a particular sequence of amino acids? Is that what you call 'information'?

[DannyM]

I quoted from the very article that Stephen Meyers quoted from in the article you presented.

That's fine. Now please cite the link; this would be standard practice.

It is clear that a self-replicating molecule could spontaneously arise, this is all the 'information' that is required, once this happens all else follows. When I said 'generated' I clearly meant that in conditions replicating those of the young earth we come ever closer to simulating the creation of life.

Again, your flamboyance here is interesting. A self-replicating molecule can only replicate in a test tube under controlled conditions and by intelligent agents. What you claim is 'clear' is very far from clear in the real world and without investigator interference.

What is this 'information' you are talking about? Do you mean a particular sequence of amino acids? Is that what you call 'information'?

If RNA was a precursor to life then it would need to acquire genetic information. Do you agree with this? What has been achieved in a test tube under controlled conditions is of very little interest to me.

[DannyM]

It is clear that a self-replicating molecule could spontaneously arise, this is all the 'information' that is required, once this happens all else follows. When I said 'generated' I clearly meant that in conditions replicating those of the young earth we come ever closer to simulating the creation of life.

I want to hone in on this for a moment. Let me ask you what 'information' you are talking about here... And what about your "all else follows" comment - do you mean genetic information simply follows from your laboratory-controlled experiment? And please lay out what the early earth conditions are in your opinion...

[neo-x]

interesting discussion so far guys.

DannyM » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:03 pm

Leprechaun wrote:
It is clear that a self-replicating molecule could spontaneously arise, this is all the 'information' that is required, once this happens all else follows. When I said 'generated' I clearly meant that in conditions replicating those of the young earth we come ever closer to simulating the creation of life.


I want to hone in on this for a moment. Let me ask you what 'information' you are talking about here... And what about your "all else follows" comment - do you mean genetic information simply follows from your laboratory-controlled experiment? And please lay out what the early earth conditions are in your opinion...

Excellent points Danny.

[neo-x]

Hey, Leprechaun, I have not read all of the past posts but I think there are some interesting points which require attention. first one being:

How and why self organizing behavior, such as the RNA to replicate itself, begun in terms of evolutionary process?

It is clear that a self-replicating molecule could spontaneously arise, this is all the 'information' that is required, once this happens all else follows. When I said 'generated' I clearly meant that in conditions replicating those of the young earth we come ever closer to simulating the creation of life.

If you say chance, than I think it is too slow. Yes it looks good enough on the surface, it just gets sticky when you come down to the details. It is like you're playing roulette and you win for 4 billion years, flat out. This is not a very good logic to produce a statement like (all else follows). Chance can not be the only factor here. So a supposition that a self replicating molecule (under a young earth condition) could spontaneously arise, is like saying a tornado hit the scrap yard and assembled the scarp into a fully functional Ferrari. This is very thin. Some sort of guidance would be needed, information if you would say, code, instructions whatever. This is what Danny has been asking you for the last some posts and what is the source of of that information, how and why did it generate in the first place. Change in any order requires a motive, a need.

(sorry Danny, I took the liberty here to think this is what you meant by info, if not, I apologize.)

The thing is if you think it is an array of chanced genetic encounters than it is wild speculation. Evolution, Intelligent design, natural selection are not blind forces. For instance, the creatures, like sperm whales, beaked whales, dolphins, and others like bats, all use echolocation. You need to have special vocal apparatus to produce echo locations, a good year to catch that echo and a large brain to process that information at the same time, this means that these features would have to arise at the same time in terms of evolution or else it is of no use, it would fail. What are the chances of it that these features developed at the same time.

This is self organizing behavior but to think about that all of it just happened without a blueprint to follow is literally un-scientific. Its like killing the question rather than answering it. It forms an argument where the initial conditions which produced the argument in the first place are un-questioned and thought to be right to begin with. Since the condition are right, you can't falsify the claim. But this is a logical error.

[Leprechaun]

It is clear that a self-replicating molecule could spontaneously arise, this is all the 'information' that is required, once this happens all else follows. When I said 'generated' I clearly meant that in conditions replicating those of the young earth we come ever closer to simulating the creation of life.

I want to hone in on this for a moment. Let me ask you what 'information' you are talking about here... And what about your "all else follows" comment - do you mean genetic information simply follows from your laboratory-controlled experiment? And please lay out what the early earth conditions are in your opinion...

I am not sure what excactly it is you are referring to when you say 'information' and so I have taken it to mean a particular sequence of amino acids (or something of that nautre). If we are using 'information' to denote such sequences then I can't see any barrier to the spontaneous arrival of a particular sequence.

[Leprechaun]

Hey, Leprechaun, I have not read all of the past posts but I think there are some interesting points which require attention. first one being:

How and why self organizing behavior, such as the RNA to replicate itself, begun in terms of evolutionary process?

It is clear that a self-replicating molecule could spontaneously arise, this is all the 'information' that is required, once this happens all else follows. When I said 'generated' I clearly meant that in conditions replicating those of the young earth we come ever closer to simulating the creation of life.

If you say chance, than I think it is too slow. Yes it looks good enough on the surface, it just gets sticky when you come down to the details. It is like you're playing roulette and you win for 4 billion years, flat out. This is not a very good logic to produce a statement like (all else follows). Chance can not be the only factor here. So a supposition that a self replicating molecule (under a young earth condition) could spontaneously arise, is like saying a tornado hit the scrap yard and assembled the scarp into a fully functional Ferrari. This is very thin. Some sort of guidance would be needed, information if you would say, code, instructions whatever. This is what Danny has been asking you for the last some posts and what is the source of of that information, how and why did it generate in the first place. Change in any order requires a motive, a need.

(sorry Danny, I took the liberty here to think this is what you meant by info, if not, I apologize.)

The thing is if you think it is an array of chanced genetic encounters than it is wild speculation. Evolution, Intelligent design, natural selection are not blind forces. For instance, the creatures, like sperm whales, beaked whales, dolphins, and others like bats, all use echolocation. You need to have special vocal apparatus to produce echo locations, a good year to catch that echo and a large brain to process that information at the same time, this means that these features would have to arise at the same time in terms of evolution or else it is of no use, it would fail. What are the chances of it that these features developed at the same time.

This is self organizing behavior but to think about that all of it just happened without a blueprint to follow is literally un-scientific. Its like killing the question rather than answering it. It forms an argument where the initial conditions which produced the argument in the first place are un-questioned and thought to be right to begin with. Since the condition are right, you can't falsify the claim. But this is a logical error.

The 'we couldn't have just lucked out' approach does not work.

The winning lotto numbers were 7, 8, 11, 12, 42, 44 and bonus 3. The odds of this combination arising is 4.3722865 x 10^-12. Not very likely huh? So, obviously they must have been picked in advance, right? Of course not. The problem here is that I am taking a particular configuration as given and then reasoning backwards.

You are assuming that it must have been Earth and that it must have been humans, however if you take into account the total number of planets (consider there are more stars in the Universe than grains of sand on Earth) and all the total possibilities for life then it is not unusual. It would be bizarre if life did not arise on at least one planet. If, for example we had developed on Mars (somehow) we would surely be looking to Earth and saying look at the lack of life there! How could we have just lucked out?

It was put more succintly here;

"It's a complete inversion of perspectives

Raskolnikov is truly a challenger in concepts and philosophy. Here's the complete inversion of perspectives arguments against creationism

"the deistic anthrocentric argument states there must be a God becuase the alignment of planets et al. is just to perfect to have happened randomly and that man wouldn't be here if it weren't for such perfection. In Bill O' Reilly's word "tide goes in tide goes out"

"The argument put forward by the deists is the same as saying "Why does man have four fingers and a thumb on each hand? So, gloves fit.""

"The Earth is so perfect to human habitation (or just life in general) that it can not have arisen spontaneously, and so there must be a God". Seems reasonable right?"

But not!!

" Life evolved to meet conditions on earth. The Earth did not adjust itself to life."


As in


"In essence. When one sees a puddle one does not think "Wow that hole perfectly shaped itself to the water!" one thinks "That water shaped itself to the hole."


" Indeed if Earth was inhospitable to life and we were still here then that would be an argument for God."

"The reason why people are here is because earth is hospitable not the other way around. And had Earth not been hospitable? Then we wouldn't be here and indeed the martians (on our hospitable mars) would be saying
"Well look at Mars it's the only hospitable planet in the solar system so there must be a God, I mean the odds of us being on the only planet that can support us is unlikely!""


Deists argue from the wrong perspective. As Raskolnikov points out.

"They begin with man's existence and argue backwards. The should begin with the Earth (or the universe) and argue forward to man's existence."


Now I ask you guys, is that not the thinking of a brilliant mind? I absolutely love it.

Read more: http://aplaceofponderings.proboards.com ... z1PeTCNJ00
"

[Katabole]

According to Vikram Singhy, professor of mathematics at Cardiff university, the chances of an enzyme forming from random chance are 1X 10 to the 40 thousandth power. The number therefore is essentially zero. Something has to schew nature in order for a self-replicating molecule to exist. When Richard Dawkins was asked how a self-replicating molecule came to exist, he said he didn't know. The only explanation is that the cause is non-physical because however you break down physical reality, the molecule into atoms and then the atoms into even smaller particles, the x, y and z particles (quarks), you'll eventually come to a quantity that does not have the reason for existence in itself. The physical universe cannot explain its own origin using scientific hypothesis.

[Leprechaun]

According to Vikram Singhy, professor of mathematics at Cardiff university, the chances of an enzyme forming from random chance are 1X 10 to the 40 thousandth power. The number therefore is essentially zero. Something has to schew nature in order for a self-replicating molecule to exist. When Richard Dawkins was asked how a self-replicating molecule came to exist, he said he didn't know. The only explanation is that the cause is non-physical because however you break down physical reality, the molecule into atoms and then the atoms into even smaller particles, the x, y and z particles (quarks), you'll eventually come to a quantity that does not have the reason for existence in itself. The physical universe cannot explain its own origin using scientific hypothesis.

Is that the odds of an enzyme forming per year per planet? Or what?

[Byblos]

According to Vikram Singhy, professor of mathematics at Cardiff university, the chances of an enzyme forming from random chance are 1X 10 to the 40 thousandth power. The number therefore is essentially zero. Something has to schew nature in order for a self-replicating molecule to exist. When Richard Dawkins was asked how a self-replicating molecule came to exist, he said he didn't know. The only explanation is that the cause is non-physical because however you break down physical reality, the molecule into atoms and then the atoms into even smaller particles, the x, y and z particles (quarks), you'll eventually come to a quantity that does not have the reason for existence in itself. The physical universe cannot explain its own origin using scientific hypothesis.

Is that the odds of an enzyme forming per year per planet? Or what?

Do the odds of rolling heads in a coin flip change with the number of tries (or planets or years)?

[Leprechaun]

According to Vikram Singhy, professor of mathematics at Cardiff university, the chances of an enzyme forming from random chance are 1X 10 to the 40 thousandth power. The number therefore is essentially zero. Something has to schew nature in order for a self-replicating molecule to exist. When Richard Dawkins was asked how a self-replicating molecule came to exist, he said he didn't know. The only explanation is that the cause is non-physical because however you break down physical reality, the molecule into atoms and then the atoms into even smaller particles, the x, y and z particles (quarks), you'll eventually come to a quantity that does not have the reason for existence in itself. The physical universe cannot explain its own origin using scientific hypothesis.

Is that the odds of an enzyme forming per year per planet? Or what?

Do the odds of rolling heads in a coin flip change with the number of tries (or planets or years)?

You have a 50% chance of getting heads per flip.

If the odds of enzyme formation in any given year are 10^-40 then we would expect (on average) one such event every 10^40 years..

If we take the number of stars to be 5*10^21 and take 10% if these to have Earth-like planets (from wiki) and if we take the chance of an enzyme forming to be 10^-40 per 'Earth' then we wouldn't expect to see one. If we take it as 10^-40 per 'Earth' per year then we would expect to see such an event every 2*10^19 years.

It makes huge differences. Also, can I see this quote about the odds of an enzyme forming?

[neo-x]

you are clearly avoiding the question, in my earlier post i didn't ask u how life adapted, i asked, how did it begin with out a kick start. U say in billions of stars and planets, the odds of having a planet arising with life is not hard. May i ask u, that isn't it an absurd approach.

The question is not why life is at one planet but how did it start/ arise here. can't u see the implication of ur statment, ur syaing my child is intelligent because the rest of his class is dumb. The reson he evolved into an intelligent being is because everyone else couldn't. This comparison does not answer the question why is he intelligent, it just says that he is intelligent. Proving his intelligece by the lack of the rest is absurd and illogical. Just by saying if life ain't anywhere else, its here, is not a conclusion. It is merely an observation.

I am not arguing backwards. I am asking how did it start. My approach is not 'we couldn't have just lucked out'. I know better than that. But to clarify the actual act of creation, u will have to do better than 'life arose spontaneously'.

But instead of clearing ur argument ur turne it into a useless, 'ur approach is not right'. Well my questions still stand.