Abiogenisis by the Numbers

How about the other way around? Cell walls form first as vesicles for the reaction of RNA?

I hate to get in the middle of this discussion but I sort of had the same question as Crash. When you first wrote the statement I assumed that you meant genesis but it still didn't make sense. The only definition of "genesis" which seems to make any sense at all is "The coming into being of something; the origin." But this doesn't really work either. Are you saying that we have never observed the beginning of anything?Thanks for the clarification

Hi Bob,You've may have seen the notice in one of the other threads, but RisenLord is actually JasonChin and three other identities. The RisenLord account is now suspended, too.Jason, it is clear that your purpose here isn't discussion but disruption. Is this the example you want to set for other Christians?I'd be glad to reinstate your JasonChin account if you assure me via email to Admin that you'll follow moderator requests and the Forum Guidelines, and begin discussing topics earnestly and in good faith.--Percy

Risenlord (or anybody else arguing for RL's position),Let's go back to the 300 amino acid protein.Dembski's calculations suffer from poor assumptions.1. That only one 300 amino acid could result in the formation of life. In fact, there could be millions of different amino acid combinations that could result in life, not just one. Therefore, this calculation is erroneous if protein was in fact the first step towards cellular life.2. Dembski ignores other pathways that could also give rise to life, namely catalytic RNA.Let's move to an analogy. Let's equate proteins, or even RNA, to poker cards. The chances of being dealt ace, king, queen, jack, and ten of spades in that order are astronomical. However, being dealt this royal flush, in order, has the same probability as being dealt the 2 of hearts, 5 of spades, 6 of hearts, 10 of diamonds, and the 3 of diamonds in that order. The difference is that the royal flush is a strong winning hand within the rules of poker and therefore holds more significance. The analogy here is that Dembski needs to define what a "strong poker hand" is in the world of abiogenesis.As has been shown by Miller and others, the "cards" (ie. amino acids or nucleotides) can be produced through natural processes outside of the cell. What Dembski needs to give us is all possible combinations of those "cards" that will result in life. Without that information his calculations are meaningless. Of course, no one knows all possible combinations that would result in life. In other words, Dembski's calculations mean absolutely didley squat without further knowledge within abiogenesis. Every person who tries to calculate the odds of life arising from non-life needs to define these combinations.My question to you or to whomever agrees with Dembski's calculations is what criteria did Dembski use to define all possible combinations that would result in life. If Dembski does not supply these definitions, then how can he come up with an accurate probability?This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 11-15-2004 01:23 PM

Let's start with your first item. Have we seen any other combonation fill ALL the properties of life? If not, why should life have ever formed from other combos, and why don't they exist today?

Life very well may have arisen from other combinations of "stuff" than those we have today, but was eaten by our ancestors. The RNA/DNA/our 20 amino acids system was perhaps more efficient or luckier than some alternative system. There are, after all, a few organisms around today that use slightly different DNA codes than we mammals do.

What about the information? If DNA is an instruction manual for cellular activity, wouldn't information theory apply here as well? Wouldn't we have to identify a sender of the information?

Hi, new person! Welcome to EvC!What's wrong with that first, accidental 8-mer of self-replicating RNA as the "sender?" And it failed to always "send" with perfect accuracy, and some of its "mistakes" turned out to be even better replicators? That's pretty much how the evolution game works today - I see no need to posit something fundamentally different just because it was 3,500,000,000 years ago.

quote:

---

What about the information? If DNA is an instruction manual for cellular activity, wouldn't information theory apply here as well? Wouldn't we have to identify a sender of the information?

---

DNA is not an instruction manual, it is a chemical polymer. DNA does not give instructions, it reacts with other chemicals. Information derived from DNA is of human origin and interpretation, not an inherent property of DNA itself.

quote:

---

Let's start with your first item. Have we seen any other combonation fill ALL the properties of life? If not, why should life have ever formed from other combos, and why don't they exist today?

---

No, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. That is the question in the forefront of abiogenesis, the simplest chemical system that has all of the characteristics of life (ie replication and use of resources). Research in this area is still in it's infancy, but more discoveries are being made on a regular basis. This stands in stark contrast to the position that Dembski holds, that abiogenesis, if true, had to start with a specific 300 aa protein with only one amino acid sequence possible. Dembski is claiming more knowledge of how life started than any scientist in the field has ever claimed. Then, on the basis of this spurious claim, Dembski makes calculations that supposedly model reality. To put it plainly, Dembski, nor anyone else, knows enough about abiogenesis to build a mathematical model around it.Added in Edit: I forgot to answer the second part of your post. The reason we don't see very simple replicators like those hypothesized in abiogenesis is that living species "eat" these simple chemicals. RNA, for example, is easily digested by enzymes present on almost any non-sterile surface. Proteins are readily ingested and metabolised by living species as a food source. DNA in current earth environments is also broken up by enzymes released by dead or living cells. Earth, now that life is established, is a hostile place for very simple replicators unlike a sterile Earth in it's beginnings.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 11-15-2004 02:39 PM

quote:

---

but was eaten by our ancestors.

---

This what I often think when I get P-Oed at SJgOULd. my position is that Crickian codisms, domagtically taken or no, is NOT A BROAD ENOUGH perspective, EVEN GIVEN A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAN EARTH, for any starts on life,only Kant's Hence physciotheology is a misundertstood physical teleology, only serviceable as a preperation (propaeduetic) for theology, and it is only adequate to this design by the aid of a foreign principle on which it can rely, and not in itself, as its name seems to indicate."will do, because as long as some alien can be the Kerrier(phonetic,);we would never choose to decide, as to the constiuent(elementarity) by means of taken evolutionary theory in its current probablism, so0- that only a '"rich bich"(elite)-error' of nanoecology oppressing a minority, will (then) open the universities to alternative notions of changesssssss whether religiously motivated (akaBIBLICAL CREATIONISM) or not (you pick your pet subject)! What is the motto? "Be prepared?". We were not, for 9/11, nor are we for this alteration of any said by-teacher-of-evolution-modification (BEFORE WE MODIFY it). Evos (Wilson say) have objected BECAUSE the broad view leans TO THE THEOLOGY but it is the intellectual space OPENED UP by the project in the future (not the 1st century question) that society needs more than denominational and faithful differences, for peace: to resume. Charmaine Neville talked with me on a stage across the street from here:: but hers's IS'-NOT- any such servicable name.

Loudmouth replied: "DNA is not an instruction manual, it is a chemical polymer. DNA does not give instructions, it reacts with other chemicals. Information derived from DNA is of human origin and interpretation, not an inherent property of DNA itself. "From the Human Genome Website:"DNA: Your Genetic Blueprint.DNA is the carrier of genetic information in every cell of a living organism. ...the DNA molecule, where all the information needed to build and operate an organism is contained."

My guess is that if someone thinks there is NO MORE DECODING but only molecular biology left, to do, then one might think like Watson who said on Charlie Rose, "if I only had Bill Gates' $, I would solve all diseases in a couple of decades." Even the evo Richard Lewontin whom I think treads shallow water with his insistance that organisms CREATE their environments has NOT adapted his own thought to this simplistic relation of the phenomenon of sickness and the healthy cure. I have not seen what Richard Dakwins is going to say to someone in possesion of such an informed blueprint but it does matter IN GENERAL as to the Carrier and hence Source of the information, as far as I understand the judgement. And I think you were in your right mind to ask. I am slowly begining to suspect we need a new statistical distribution derivation, to satisfy the diversity of posters here at evc, on this issue. I have not made these calCUlations, although from said general to this in particular, I do agree, such, ought to be attempted.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-15-2004 03:35 PM

quote:

---

From the Human Genome Website:

​

"DNA: Your Genetic Blueprint.

​

DNA is the carrier of genetic information in every cell of a living organism. ...the DNA molecule, where all the information needed to build and operate an organism is contained."

---

"Information", as it is used in the quote above, is not the technical term used in information theory. Instead, it is a colloquial term meant to convey a certain idea without describing DNA within a model. Also, it is called "genetic information" which has a slightly different meaning than Shannon information.If DNA carries information, then so do tree rings, star spectrums, etc. The specific type of information described in information theory includes a layer of abstraction (eg, D-O-G means a furry mammal where the actual letters have no meaning outside of language). There is no layer of abstraction in DNA. A quip I heard a while back explained it like this [paraphrasing]: "Shannon Information is in the letters, not the ink. Genetic information is the ink." That is, Shannon information has nothing to do with the chemical or physical make up of the information. For genetic information, chemical makeup is the only information.

-no layer of abstraction-
OK LM- now I understand, "where you are coming from". That is probably the same reason we did not see continent to river in the baraminology thread as well!! Thanks for your clarification!