How does Complexity demonstrate Design

HiI'll try and explain what I think is infuriating people about your conclusions. Your argument tends to be quite wide ranging - from big bang to how percieved complexity in animals evolved - so it might be useful to focus on one aspect, and address your reasoning in detail. Let's have a look at the genetic code:Correct me if I'm wrong, but your position is this:It is impossible for the information that is in the universal genetic code to arise by random processesI would say that this statement is wrong because there is no satisfactory evidence to back it up. In order for the discussion to continue past the "you prove it" "No, you prove it!'" stage you have to show us the evidence that backs up your position.This is the hard bit: Don't use analogies, use the actual facts about the genetic code. Its' easy to come up with analogies revolving around computers and programmers etc, but they don't actually reflect what we do know about the real world. If you don't know enough about how the universal code works then don't be afraid to ask - I would be happy to give you a crash course in molecular biolgy (and no doubt there are others that would be quite keen as well ).

Been there, read that, still couldn't find anything but analogy and empty rhetoric. That is why I tried to pin you down on something specific. Please correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying (among other things) that the genetic code could not have arisen by chance.If this is indeed the case, I'll try again:Explain how the universal genetic code works and why it could not have happened by chance.Seeing as you have confidently said that it is clear evidence against evolution you must understand it pretty well, so you shouldn't have too much trouble rattling off a simple answer should you? Of course if you don't understand the concept of abiogenesis or (heaven forbid) are completely ignorant of the basics of protein synthesis you will avoid answering the question again, or move the goalposts.Which one will it be?

And in order to claim that the genetic code couldn't have come about by chance you have to demonstrate that you know what it is and how it works!. For somebody who was bleating so self-righteously about ignorance a few posts ago, you haven't actually shown that you understand much. To prove me otherwise all you have to do is give me a few sentences describing protein synthesis, but for some reason you are refusing to do this - if you don't have a clue about it just say so. You have presented the genetic code as evidence that there was a designer and that evolution is impossible, and I would like you to clarify this position. This seems like very clear thinking to me. What??? Let me just repeat my premise again:I have seen no evidence to suggest that the genetic code did not arise by random mutation and selectionSo you are, in effect, asking me to list all of the evidence that I have seen.OK, if you insist: Go to your local library, get out The Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts et al, read the first few chapters and get back to me. Alternatively, you could tell me the particular aspects of the genetic code that you have a problem with, because that would save us a lot of time. There is of course a third option: you could avoid answering my questions again.This message has been edited by Ooook!, 08-16-2004 02:44 PMThis message has been edited by Ooook!, 08-16-2004 02:51 PM

We do seem to be getting somewhere now (however gradually), so yes I am happier than I was - that wasn't too hard to do was it? Your little essay did actually put forward a number of points that are the kind of things I was looking for from you, so I'll try and extrapolate. Yes, let's do that shall we, considering one of the most popular theories about how life got started suggests that RNA molecules were the first catalysts and came before protein sythesis evolved. Different sequences of RNA have been shown to have a variety of functions, ranging from simple chemical cleavage to catalysing RNA replication. A theoretical proto-cell could be quite catalytically complex by just having a variety of different sequences of RNA. So where is the code (or information if you like) that is required for this RNA-only world to function?Let's also have a look at what is required for protein synthesis to evolve from this kind of situation:

• mRNA - a strand of RNA
• tRNA - another strand of RNA which can interact with single amino acids
• ribosomes - a complex of protein and RNA in which the protein is assembled. The presence of proteins is not required for this to evolve because it is the RNA which provides the active site.

I see no reson why the genetic code could not have evolved from the RNA-only world by random mutation. Can you point to the part which would absolutely require inteligence to get involved? If Mark and I are singing the same song it is because we are both equally unimpressed by your 'proof'. We probably have a similar patience threshold when it comes to people debating by analogy.
You're obviously very impressed with message 226, but what it really boils down to is this: This is what I mean by debating by analogy. Unless you can demonstrate that a computer is exactly analogous to the kind of situation I am describing then your position is meaningless. As Crash has pointed out, science does not provide absolute proofs, just tentative answers. However, I suppose if you could truthfully say something like this: then you would go some way to challenging my position. As none of the statement is true, then your position is not supported.

Take your time. Despite initial appearances I much prefer a properly researched and structured debate to a slanging match. Have no fear, I am hitting pubmed right now.

A couple of things before I start, by way of correction and clarification: This is talking about eukaryotic cells and certainly has little to do with the simple cell-like start to life. It is also quite inaccurate: mRNA does not make its' way to the ER, and the ER is not where all proteins are made. The same goes to your reference to the nucleus - its' a eukaryotic feature. I think I need to clarify something I said earlier. The active site of the ribosome, where the peptide bond between two amino acids is formed (ie the business end of the ribosome) is mainly made up of rRNA. How it is catalysed is a bit unclear, but what is clear is that rRNA plays a major role in the primary function of the ribosome. A situation where solely RNA could perform this catalysis is not unimaginable by any means.With this in mind I'd like to add another term to your list:Ribozyme: a strand of RNA with enzymatic activity.Now onto the main thrust of your argument: You're making a common creationist mistake by comparing modern (and therefore highly evolved) life with early, "proto-life". Early life was, almost by definition, simple, crude and imperfect. It didn't have to be perfect though, just able to reach what we have now in small steps.For example, all life now (with the possible exception of RNA viruses - if you count viruses as being 'alive') is based on DNA being the storage molecule, but why did this have to be the case as life began? DNA scores over RNA in many ways as a store of base sequences, but they are very similar molecules, and RNA could quite easily started out as the storage medium, only to be replaced by the its' more stable cousin. After all, whats an -OH group between molecules?RNA molecules, as P.S. rightly points out, have been shown to be capable of self-replication. Synthetic RNA strands have even been shown to replicate other RNA molecules independently of DNA or protein. Again, no code required, just the laws of physics, and selective pressures. Which brings me back, as ever, to the 'universal' genetic code:Even the genetic code didn't have to pop into existance in its' entirety with the codons for all 20 amino acids intact. One paper I read recently suggested that a 'proto-code' of just 5 or 6 amino acids would be enough to start life off on the protein road.These amino acids tend to be the most abundant in the Miller primordial soup, all have simple codons (consisting of mostly C's and G's) and are known to be important in the formation of secondary structure in proteins (especially in beta-sheet motifs). Other amino acids with more complex codons, and longer biosynthetic pathways could be integrated at a later time-frame.This possible step-wise generation of the genetic code suggests to me that a designer is not required.And finally, regarding your assertion that is enough to show that a computer and the origins of life are analogous:What part of the computer reperesents the replicating, uncoding molecule such as RNA? Which particular bits are the free floating amino acids, or the lipid membranes?In other words, how exactly can you equate a man-made computer with a primordial soup, the contents and conditions of which we can only make vague guesses at? By the time you've actually made a good stab at evening it up, you end up with something that is nothing like a computer, and so the analogy is meaningless.And before you reply remember that nobody is saying that the origin of life, as I am describing it, is a cast iron fact. We're just saying that it is possible.This message has been edited by Ooook!, 08-18-2004 06:55 PM

Here's the pubmed abstractAs with most theoretical stuff, it gets a bit confusing in parts (well it does for this lowly cell biologist) but I think I read it correctly. The one bit that I have misread (and will go and correct on my previous message) is that the early codons (for the Miller aas) were GC rich, although not exclusively GC.Hope this is helpful.

Hello again,I'll try and tackle your questions first (although I must say that P.S. has given very good replies to them already), and then try and explain why your computer analogy still doesn't hold primordial soup.Remember that no-one is saying that early life was anything like as complex a even the simplest modern bacteria, and was more akin to a fatty sack with a collection of replicating molecules in it. Why do you say that? Why couldn't ribozymes have done the job? RNA based enzymes are still used in replicating DNA at the telomeres of chromosomes for example. As I have pointed out before, they have been shown to have a wide variety of functions. I remember being quite blown away in a lecture by Tom Cech a few years ago. Not only was he an excellent speaker, his subject matter was fascinating. He was showing X-ray crystal structures of Ribozymes and I was amazed at how like the protein models they were, with clear active sites and quite complex structures. All this without a genetic code. In modern bacteria, protein based polymerases read off RNA transcripts from a DNA template. That's not what I'm saying though. Life could have got started by random RNA polymerisation followed by selection, pretty much as P.S. described it. Just because we do not know exactly what kind of conditions could have existed on a pre-biotic earth for this to happen does not mean you can insert a designer into the gap in our knowledge. Yet again P.S. beat me to the punch again (damn these time-zones). The template for the RNA is the RNA molecule itself, lab experiments have shown this to be the case. God of the gaps again, I'm afraid. Just because we can't show something, doesn't mean it can't happen.So, why isn't your computer a decent explaination? I think this is the crux of people's objections to your insistance to argue by analogy. It is extremely important for the two examples to be directly comparable, especially if you insist on using it as your main arguement. My request for the computer equivilent of the sack of RNA is not just a whim on my part, it is vital for your comparisen to stand up to scrutiny. Otherwise, all you are proving is that computers can't program themselves. The truth is - I don't know the truth. You are saying that it would be absolutely impossible for the complexity of the DNA code to have evolved by chance and I am simply presenting a plausible solution based on evidence, which you have not disproved. Its' not hypocritical at all, the inability to exactly reproduce the 'start of life' in a lab does not devalue the hoards of other supporting evidence for evolution. I might pop over there if I have time and try and tackle you on this as well. This is another one of my bugbears.Ta ta for now

Too right,I'm lousy at replying promtly

Mmmm... I'm not sure that you have. Please point me towards the post in which you did this comprehensively. So far I can only find examples such as this (from one of your most recent posts): If this is the kind of equivalency you are talking about, then you've misunderstood what I am asking for. The above statement is based purely on the (unproven) assumption that all 'information' has to originate from intelligence.I'll try and explain what I'm looking for from you. Please don't try and argue from any of the examples in the following paragraph, it is just an explanation of what I mean by equivalency and of why I think such analogies are pointless (don't get me started on mousetraps!):Let's imagine a computer, and say that it is equivalent to the prebiotic conditions you are saying it is impossible for the genetic code to have arisen from. Now, the computer has no information as such, just a set of rules that the many different components have to abide by (like the laws of physics). At one point in time the set of computer rules make it so that the conditions are condusive to making lots of strings of numbers (polymerisation of RNA or RNA like molecules). Now these strings of numbers have no intrinsic code in them, but the sequence of the numbers defines how the strings 'fold' into crude 'programs' - according to the laws of the computer (?! See what I mean - what is the programming equivalent of RNA structure?). These programs don't do an excellent job, but its' better than nothing and they can make copies of themselves. Eventually, some of these numbers become able to utilise free floating letters that keep knocking around. Now, programs made from letters...Complete A1 gibberish, I'm sure you'd agree. I hope you can see my point though - what I've just described goes a little way to being something akin to a P. soup, but is nothing like a computer!!. You've made no effort to change your computer so what you are saying, in effect is this: I hope you can see the problem with that statement.So onto my arguments and the treatment of evidence: I know what you are trying to say here. In ribozyme engineering, it is likely that protein polymerases are used (I don't know - I'll have to check). This is neither here nor there, because the kind of ribozyme engineering that P.S. has been giving as examples of deals with the earth after a spontaneous (random) polymerisation is possible. There is a big bit missing from the puzzle (the longest spontaneous RNA polymers are still relatively short), but that is no excuse to try and jam God into the gap. But they don't, they produce copies of the original template - very much non-random! I think this statement is inaccurate and unfair. The Miller type of experiments are (or at least should be) used as evidence in debates with creationists in response to claims that complex molecules such as amino acids could not have arisen naturally. They should never be used to say " look we now know exactly how it was done!", because we don't have enough detailed information about the conditions of a primordial earth. Likewise, the fact that we cannot reproduce everything required for life to begin in a test-tube should never be used to support the claim that it is impossible for such events to happen - we simply don't know enough (proving negatives is hard enough at the best of times). I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, could you expand on this comment?And finally, might I give a friendly piece of advice:I would suggest that you try not be so dismissive of other posters. Try and engage them in a discussion, there are many who do have valid points (especially Pink Sasquatch) who would appreciate a response. I understand that you are one against many and multiple lines of argument would be inconvenient, but a bit of polite acknowledgement would not go amiss.

Actually I think I do understand what you are trying to say, and it's a bit of a mixed message. If we try and ignore the very confusing concept of computers within computers I would say that you are imagining something like a giant supercomputer, analogous to the universe at the beginning of existance with the programs being analogous to the laws of physics. This I could almost accept: the laws of physics are designed and the genetic code arises from that situation according to the laws of physics. I say almost because I still can't quite see how building a computer is analogous to programming a Big Bang (but that is definitely another topic).However, by saying that the specific complexity of the genetic code has to be, itself a program then you have to use a P-soup computer which doesn't exist, or at least is nothing like your example.You can't have it both ways. Either the universe as a whole was designed at the start and the DNA code formed because of the intrinsic properties of the atoms etc, or the DNA code is analogous to a program, in which case your 'computer' has to represent pre-biotic conditions, which it doesn't. OK let's examine this statement and see what I mean by 'very much non-random' - this is probably my fault as I should have been more specific. Imagine a sequence of RNA, let's call it the template: when this is copied this will be turned into: If the copy provides some kind of advantage to the little bag of replicating molecules it is part of then it would be selected for, along with its' template (they are both copies of one another after all). How would this result in a random collection of RNA sequences? It is this kind of scenario that ribozyme engineering is trying to replicate (weak pun intended), but the process of selection is the same in principle - it just happens quicker if humans intervene. OK, I see what you mean now. Let me expand on it a bit:I have never said that theories covering the origin of life are anything other than highly speculative and require quite a lot of imagination - there's not much info on the state of the world billions of years ago. The speculations however are based on observed evidence (like ribozymes, and the apparent hierarchy of the genetic code). They are, in other words quite good reposts to the age old creationist mantra of "It's just not possible!". I can quite easily imagine a situation where it could be possible without seeing any conflicting evidence.On the other hand, ID and other creationist theories are based on God of the Gaps and analogy. If you can present a piece of 'evidence' that is not based on an unsuitable example or a lack of knowledge I will be very surprised.

Thanks Brad,After a long and boring day, that's cheered me up no end!In answer to your question:I really can't say!

Oh my word!!I've just read my most recent post to yxifix, and short of adding a few CAPITAL letters, there a bits of it that were decidedly Bradlike .If anyone would like a translation I'm happy to take a couple of horse tranqs and try again!