abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

Nevermind....wrong thread

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The fields of molecular biology and computer science have cooperated over recent years to create a synergy between the cybernetic and biosemiotic relationship found in cellular genomics to that of information and language found in computational systems. Biological information frequently manifests its "meaning" through instruction or actual production of formal bio-function. Such information is called prescriptive information (PI). PI programs organize and execute a prescribed set of choices. Closer examination of this term in cellular systems has led to a dichotomy in its definition suggesting both prescribed data and prescribed algorithms are constituents of PI. This paper looks at this dichotomy as expressed in both the genetic code and in the central dogma of protein synthesis. An example of a genetic algorithm is modeled after the ribosome, and an examination of the protein synthesis process is used to differentiate PI data from PI algorithms.

There is a synergy between the machinery of the ribosome and its coherence with the language context of the DNA/RNA environment, reinforcing the prescribed algorithmic operations of the ribosome. There is no known physicodynamic cause for the codon to tRNA translation scheme.

That's quite a coincidence! Just like I've been explaining.

www.nature.com...

In this age of genome sequencing, the idea that biopolymer sequences are a type of molecularly coded information is well established. We are all familiar with the idea that it is the sequence of the nucleotides or amino acids that make up DNA, RNA or protein molecules that determine their structure and function.

A list of peer reviewed papers from David L. Abel Department of ProtoBioCybernetics and ProtoBioSemiotics

davidlabel.blogspot.com.au...

www.amazon.com...

“The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control” is a peer-reviewed anthology of papers that focuses, for the first time, entirely on the following difficult scientific questions: *How did physics and chemistry write the first genetic instructions? *How could a prebiotic (pre-life, inanimate) environment consisting of nothing but chance and necessity have programmed logic gates, decision nodes, configurable-switch settings, and prescriptive information using a symbolic system of codons (three nucleotides per unit/block of code)? The codon table is formal, not physical. It has also been shown to be conceptually ideal. *How did primordial nature know how to write in redundancy codes that maximally protect information? *How did mere physics encode and decode linear digital instructions that are not determined by physical interactions? All known life is networked and cybernetic. “Cybernetics” is the study of various means of steering, organizing and controlling objects and events toward producing utility. The constraints of initial conditions and the physical laws themselves are blind and indifferent to functional success. Only controls, not constraints, steer events toward the goal of usefulness (e.g., becoming alive or staying alive). Life-origin science cannot advance until first answering these questions: *1-How does nonphysical programming arise out of physicality to then establish control over that physicality? *2-How did inanimate nature give rise to a formally-directed, linear, digital, symbol-based and cybernetic-rich life? *3-What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for turning physics and chemistry into formal controls, regulation, organization, engineering, and computational feats? “The First Gene” directly addresses these questions.

And on and on and on...

I could post pages of data. It will still not convince anyone.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Hey Cogito, I accept what you are saying. I think if we ever did meet we'd probably find that we are not really very different. Words sometimes fail to illucidate sometimes. You seem to be open minded, I appeciate that.

I'm not religious, never read the bible and can count the number of times I was forced to go to church on one hand.

The teachers I refer to were more guides than teachers, the lessons come from within. It was not proof of a creator only that there is something much greater than the self.

Originally posted by squiz


And on and on and on...

I could post pages of data. It will still not convince anyone.

The problem here seems to be that while science is asking genuine questions and looking for answers, you are not.

Your mind is made up. You already "know".

Perhaps Einstein/Spinoza's god still lives.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


I only "Know" there is something greater than myself. It's nature I cannot describe. That's all I claim to know in this regard.

I have changed my views many times based on experience and science, it most likely will change again with more insight. You are misjudging me again, my beliefs are not fixed.

I've said many times I don't know what god is. I "believe" consciousness is fundamental. That's about as simple as I can put it. Anything beyond this just seems to be misinterpreted.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

I only "Know" there is something greater than myself. It's nature I cannot describe.
I have changed my views many times based on experience and science it most likely will change again with more insight.

edit on 18-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)

Fair enough.

I feel similar, though I honestly "know" very little.

I usually feel it is a shame when personal views/beliefs try to water down science. Perhaps because I have seen what problems pseudo science and religious cults can cause.

Though I don't say anyone should necessarily discount personal experience. Only that these things are not necessarily valid in a scientific sense. Obviously science has its own methods, seems to be doing ok so far.

I keep hearing the words "god does not play dice". Perhaps Einstein will end up being right one day, with more understanding? At least I admire his views, even though they don't need any real version of "god" outside of metaphor and would completely contradict Godel...

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

In the experiences it's also clear I know very little, it's even difficult to comprehend and fades with the regular state of mind.

I'm more interested in consciousness than seeking a personal god. As far as NDE research goes the majority of people in this field of research are convinced it is a real phenomena.

On the other hand materialist must stake a claim that all of them, thousands and thousands of cases are all dillusional every single one, there can be no exceptions to this in that world view. That's quite a claim, and one that does not fit the evidence IMO.

I mention this because NDE's talk about things that I have also expeienced. They sometimes refer to a knowing that seems to melt away on return, much like how the memory of a dream will fade within moments upon waking.

There may be something within our usual consciousness that limits or prohibits this sense.

Just food for thought only.

Originally posted by squiz

There is a synergy between the machinery of the ribosome and its coherence with the language context of the DNA/RNA environment, reinforcing the prescribed algorithmic operations of the ribosome. There is no known physicodynamic cause for the codon to tRNA translation scheme.

That's quite a coincidence! Just like I've been explaining.

You haven't been explaining anything. This doesn't say the translation process violates the laws of chemistry. It says out of all the possible genetic codes there could be, the one we have survived due to nothing more than random chemistry. I know English can be a bit tricky, but for you I can see its almost impossible because of your skewed perspective.

Relative to what I've seen previously, a quote from the actual paper is a step up. Though based on its content, which is virtually irrelevant, and your history, I think its safe to assume you merely hit Ctrl+F, typed in "codon" and did a copy and paste. For some this is complex keyboard acuity.

www.nature.com...

In this age of genome sequencing, the idea that biopolymer sequences are a type of molecularly coded information is well established. We are all familiar with the idea that it is the sequence of the nucleotides or amino acids that make up DNA, RNA or protein molecules that determine their structure and function.

From page one of Szostak's paper, the actual paper not the abstract

Functional information

A quantitative means of comparing the functional abilities of different biopolymers would allow us to dissect out differences and to discern their origins.

Read the actual paper. Read the actual paper. Do not cherry pick from abstracts. He's suggesting how scientists should approach the field of genetics. This doesn't say anything whatsoever in any way shape or form about the intelligent properties prescribed to organic molecules. Szostak is at the forefront of "abiogenesis" research. Here is a link to his harvard website:

Szostak's Lab

There has never been a peer-review paper to suggest anything remotely close to what you are claiming. And this is like the 5th time you have quoted an abstract from Szostak, and from the same paper. Why do you do this to yourself.

reply to post by squiz


I also see great potential possibilities within the nature of consciousness.

I can relate to the experiences you mention, those that transcend all notions of time and space, personally. The profound and humbling beauty of it all. There are also many other types of similar experiences that I am aware of, which I still study and learn about.

The great shame is that these things are often cornered by some group or "wise one" under the guise of being "mystical/ special" to prop up what is basically a religious dogma. This way they are rarely ever studied for what they are, in themselves.

As far as I know, similar experience can be brought on artificially, I am also very aware of how psychological manipulation can be responsible for certain experiences. Many cults use this to great effect.

It seems it will be left to science to study this honestly.

Whether it is just a result of certain brain chemicals (no doubt this plays a part) or whether there is something more, one day will be known. I have the feeling there is more. Though not in the normal religious way.

Though whatever transpires, I also have the feeling it will compliment known science, rather than contradict it. Possibly leaving many disenfranchised charlatans in its wake. That's just my opinion.

I still don't see any need for a creator, or why the idea of abiogenesis must be shelved, because of any of this. I certainly find no reason to believe in the deity of modern religion (as I believe his promotion was the motivation for this thread). It is simply too ridiculous a myth, with his "word" easily disprovable by anyone with common sense and an open mind (IMO).

Though at this stage, who really knows the truth?

reply to post by squiz


That "The First Gene" book you linked is pseudo-scientific GARBAGE

Here's a typical review of the book:

This book mixes commonly defined scientific terms, many misused scientific phrases, fake philosophy, and quite a lot of made up scientific sounding garbage to confuse and confound the layman. The concepts are untested, unsubstantiated by any experiments (their own or others), and untestable. The main author is a retired veterinarian who is unqualified to speak about the origins of life. The co-authors are known creationists and neo-creationist Intelligent Design proponents who have very few scientific publications in reputable peer-reviewed journals. (Self-published work like 'Bio-Complexity' does not count.) In short, real scientists know enough to avoid this kind of nonsense. If you're a non-scientist trying to learn about real science, then look for a better book written by real scientists.

In short, that book is at best good enough to be used as toilet paper...but you'd have to be a fool to take it seriously

Originally posted by squiz
Let's simplify.

What is the KNOWN source of symbolic code people? answer the question. It only requires a simple answer.

Why can't we infer from what we know? That's very very basic scientific principle. Thanks again to UAV for clarifying this point.

You see, you HAVE to deny it, don't you? You will never answer these in simple terms without all the twisting and misrepresentations can you?

You don't have to agree that the conclusion is correct. But seriously you are not being honest with yourselves because you refuse to acknowledge even these very simple things.

Science has no answer for the origin of life for good reason. The origin of information. The RNA hypothesis was thought to provide an answer even though it begins with information. 30 years later and only more and more problems with it have emerged.

Neo-Darwinism will not survive the infusion of bioinformatics, it's days are numbered, It's already outdated. When the last die hard darwinists die off. The new biologists of the information age will provide real answers, and in turn propel us technologically and medically forward in quantum leaps by using and understanding what is inherent in nature. Wait and see it's already begun.

edit on 18-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)

Yes...science doesn't know how life first started...but NO ONE KNOWS

By claiming a god or gods did it, you are essentially filling a gap in knowledge with magic...aka god. It's the old "god of the gaps" argument all over again

reply to post by uva3021


Yes and you cherry pick little pieces of arguments and attack those as well as twisting into something else, that is your pattern.

There is no known physicodynamic cause for the codon to tRNA translation scheme.

This was the thing you denied. Clear as day. It's not about denying chemistry, you twist it once again.

It says out of all the possible genetic codes there could be, the one we have survived due to nothing more than random chemistry.

Absolute rubbish, there is nothing in that paper that says anything like that. I'm glad you think it is a step up. Guess what? I have read that paper and the book written by one of the authors. It is about intelligent design from a programming point of view So it's quite obvious you create your own little objections based on nothing.

He's suggesting how scientists should approach the field of genetics. This doesn't say anything whatsoever in any way shape or form about the intelligent properties prescribed to organic molecules.

It's about functional information and measuring functionality by information.
You know information theory, The thing you denied has a place in biology remember?

According to Szostak, "a new measure of information -- functional information -- is required" in order to take account of the ability of a given protein sequence to perform a given function.

You just say it's cherry picking That statement could not be any clearer.

There are many points in those links that clearly defy your position. It's just more denial as expected.

You deny that prescriptive information is non physical, the point was clealy made. A child can understand it. It's a principle of cybernetics and information theory. Coded information is non physical. But you can't grasp the concept you've denied it all the way and still do.

Szostak will die without having advanced abiogenesis, the RNA hypothesis is defunct. Even many materialist doubt it's validity.

But you'll just deny that as well.

reply to post by MrXYZ


You've read it have you? of course not. There aren't enough pictures in it It's a review of many different approaches to abiogenesis.

Oh a book review Any dolt could have and did write that. I doubt they read the book either because quite frankly he/she is lying. You complain about logical fallacies but you can't recognize them when you are in agreement with them.

When critics use adhoms like that, it's obvious the don't have a real argument at all. It's just the same crapola that darwinits spew all over the blogosphere. Quit obviously it's a threat. One that can't be argued with any real science so Adhoms and lies are the standard response by those threatened by it.

Still they can't answer the questions proposed can he/she? They just use the typical tactics like the atheists here, lot's of denial and logical fallacies then call it a day.

They are valid scientific questions, typically rather than adressing them they use the standard darwinist tactics. It's very transparent.

The Origin-of-Life Science Foundation should not be confused with "creation science"or "intelligent design" groups. It has no religious affiliations of any kind, nor are we connected in any way with any New Age, Gaia, or "Science and Spirit" groups. The Origin-of-Life Science Foundation, Inc. is a science and education foundation encouraging the pursuit of natural-process explanations and mechanisms within nature.

Where's my answer to my question I put to you? Afraid? I'll take it as a yes.

I think I'm done with this stupidity. You have all failed to admit even the simplest things, and have provided no falsification what so ever. I do think open minded readers will clearly see the evasion, misdirection, poor tactics and poor knowledge of a host of scientific disciplines that has been clearly shown.

Cogito Ergo Sum, is the only critic here with any honesty at all. He disagrees with me on many thngs but he doesn't come off as a complete tool in the process.

Here's another review of "the first gene"

Dr. David L. Abel is without a doubt one of the greatest scientific thinkers of our day. An experienced researcher in the fields of Molecular Biology and Information Systems and Management, he is the father of the scientific disciplines of ProtoBioCybernetics and ProtoBioSemiotics and the director of the worldwide Gene Emergence Project. Indeed, he is an extraordinary life-origin specialist.

This book makes it clear why he is established as a champion of true science thought and a nightmare to those who would pollute real science thinking with naturalistic agendas.

The introduction alone will no doubt send chills down the spines those who for many years have striven to separate and ignore the relationship between the question of origin and the story telling upon which some so called "science" is based. In the introduction he makes this gripping statement:

"Why would a prebiotic environment have "cared" whether anything functioned? How could inanimate nature have recognized, valued, pursued or worked to preserve the "usefulness" of certain molecules? Undirected evolution has no goal. Natural selection favors only the fittest already-programmed, already-living organisms. Evolution cannot program at the genetic level.
"Survival of the fittest" does not explain the generation of the very first organism, fit or unfit.

Even bacteria depend upon highly integrated circuits and metabolic schemes regulated by DNA instructions and RNA controllers. Genomic prescriptive information is now known to be multidimensional. How did thousands of molecular machines, biochemical pathways and cycles get integrated into such a sustained, cooperative, goaloriented, holistic metabolism? Can physico-chemical propensities and/or mutations program logic gates and integrate circuits? How could chance and/or necessity (the fixed laws of physics) have computed the formal algorithms needed to organize life?

While some scientists might wish to sweep these questions under the rug for being too "metaphysical," they are as foundational to the science of biology as mathematics is to physics. Addressing such questions is the only path to understanding the emergence of the first genetic instructions, metabolic regulation, and life itself."

If the introduction does not sufficiently grip those guilty of polluting science with pseudo-science and out right deception, while at the same time giving hope to those sincere science advocates who have been discouraged by the prominence of just so stories being pushed as science, then Dr. Abel's dedication should serve as both a potent warning of what is to follow as well as a word of encouragement:

"This anthology is dedicated to all those challengers of Kuhnian Paradigm Ruts who risk their careers and reputations raising an eyebrow of skepticism over theories that are pontificated to be fact by a thoroughly entrenched hierarchy and majority, but which are in fact unfalsifiable, completely unsubstantiated empirically, lacking a single prediction fulfillment, and not even logically defensible."

This powerful statement is promptly followed by a Table of Contents that would convince the hostile scientist who does not want to be convinced to read no further and just claim ignorance of the book's existence, while inspiring the true seeker of origins understanding to set aside some quality time to take this journey.

A real review by someone who has actually read the book.

reply to post by squiz


Just because they say they're scientific doesn't mean they are, especially given the CVs of the authors.

FACT is we don't know how life started, so their claims are nonsense.

By the way, do you research your sources before you post them? Just asking because 5 min of research would have shown you what garbage that "origin of life foundation" is: Link

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by squiz

 

No, what you've done is misapplying Godel's statements

edit on 18-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

The only thing always missing when a creator is claimed to exist, is anything of the actual creator or any way of observing it directly.

Certain causes are observed by their effects, this is a perfectly acceptable method to explain certain effects in science. Do you know why you raised this issue even though you probably knew the above already? Is your argument that the effects (existence of natural laws and matter, living and non-living) of the cause (God) cannot be observed or studied? Or is your argument that you do not agree with the conclusion of the hypothesis that the cause of these effects is a source of intelligence higher than the current intelligence level of humans? If it's the latter, than you still can't claim that a cause (God) cannot be observed by the effects (existence of natural laws and matter). Matter can still be observed and studied and if one wants to form a hypothesis that claims an intelligent source is the cause then it's no different than the way the laws of Gravity were first put on paper. You can always refine later with more study as Einstein did for us concerning the laws of Gravity (by for example explaining more about the source of that intelligence).

There's really no denying it anymore, when looking at the life of the inner cell (the video is somewhere in this thread) we can clearly see construction at work, machinery being assembled, dissambled, and not just any kind of machinery and assembly lines, no, the kind we came up with ourselves BEFORE we saw all this. Take for example a tickertape, can you spot a tickertape in that video? Now explain in evolutionary terms how it can be that we as humans came up with a solution to a problem that just happens to coincidentally be almost exactly the same as supposed UNINTELLIGENT nature came up with?

When did we invent the tickertape again? I'm sure it was before we had a chance to look at the lemmings (motor protein) within a cell.

The bible gives us a perfectly logical explanation/cause for this effect though, it tells us that man was created in God's image, so that means we think alike, we're not as intelligent, but we DO come up with a similar solution to a problem or something we want to accomplish, our machines are just a bit more crude because of that (and in the case of lemmings/motor protein, ever heard of a sense of humor? how does evolution/natural causes explain humor? cause and effect baby, the Great We Don't Know Yet-God of the gaps is useless to anyone, that's not science, especially when your possible answers keep on failing, then it's time to study the answer that hasn't failed yet and investigate further).

Originally posted by squiz
I'm not appealing to an unknown, I'm appealing to a known. Code only comes from a mind.
Why is it so hard for you to understand. The above is a clear misrepresentation. YOU must apeal to an UNKNOWN because there are no other known sources. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp. Your in bizzarro land.

Huh? You are claiming DNA was created by a higher intelligence without any proof of this existing. It's simple logic 101. You can't appeal to a higher intelligence without evidence of it. That is the poorest logic I've ever seen. I'm admitting that we don't know the answer, but for some reason you can't even consider that!

You also claimed that DNA was not a code, that it is simplistic, which goes against everything science has discovered. That's logic? No it's denial. It's embarrassing in light of your self proclaimed understanding of science.
How you can continue to post in light of such critical errors is amazing. You then claim I don't understand science.

DNA CONTAINS a code. It isn't one in itself. I said that the code is NOT digital, and I denied that nanotechnology and miniature machines exist in the cell. The code is man made like every thing else we study. Yes, information theory helps us organize the code, but it's just the molecular structure that we are talking about. We use the code to help understand it.

Your arguments were based on the reasoning of the inference, you made several dozen BS twisted arguments on the simple 1,2,3 inductive logic. I restated the inference and UAV backed it up.

You did not back anything up. Your statements were not logical and I clearly explained why. Nothing was twisted I used the same exact logic, you did. Please show me exactly where and why the logic I used is different. Good luck with that one.

1. Statements 1 and 2 are not absolute scientific facts. That's the first requirement of an inference.

2. You intentionally leave out words and details that would change the complete meaning of the statement(ex, HUMAN intelligence)

3. You are equating human intelligence with a higher intelligence when they are not the same thing.

What KNOWN causes can best describe the phenomena we are trying to explain?

Since a higher intelligence is not KNOWN, how can you assert that as a known cause?

Code comes from Mind = Fact.

ALL code comes from mind = guess

For the last time:

I do not know the origin of DNA code

YOU do not know the origin of DNA code

I know the origin of code.

Thanks for playing. You just confirmed that it's nothing more than a word game and refuse to even admit you don't know the answer. This is the problem with most creationists. You can't be wrong, nomatter what. Your argument does not address specifics, it generalizes everything. You do NOT know the origin of DNA code. That is the subject of this debate, not human intelligence. We know humans weren't around when DNA first originated so it is not logical to assume humans created them. If you can prove another intelligence exists besides us, you might have a case, but you don't. I don't understand why you continue to try to deceive people with semantics and word games. If scientific inference worked the way you wish it did, then ID would be accepted by most scientists and published in peer reviewed journals. But wait, it's already been determined unscientific by 99% of the scientific community. I wonder what that could indicate.

Originally posted by squiz
What is the KNOWN source of symbolic code people? answer the question. It only requires a simple answer.

Humans.

Why can't we infer from what we know? That's very very basic scientific principle. Thanks again to UAV for clarifying this point.

Because humans didn't design DNA, unless you believe that we time traveled.

It's really not that complicated. Stop leaving out the human part and it becomes painfully obvious that the logic takes a fall right there.

reply to post by whereislogic


Hi, I'm a little tired of the argument. I'm outnumbered a bit But I think I can resolve most what you saying..

As far as science goes, all I'm saying is it possible to detect design? not asking who is the designer. That can remain theological or philosophical.

It's also about a fundamental shift of view about DNA and the cell and a new perspective of life as information systems. This is growing with momentum.

This changes everything. including it's origin. This is nothing but asking difficult questions. It's scientific at the core. The implications are another thing all together.

So I'll leave it for you and the deniers to come to thier own conclusions. It's very easy to just ignore it.

This is not really for you, just a final point before I have to take off.

The real person who is the leading exponent in the field. It's not Szostak, it's Craig Ventor, he is after all the one who DESIGNED the first synthetic living cell. I think that puts him a little ahead of the field.

Check out how he did it. It's got design written all over it. Here's a sample.
cacm.acm.org...

We did not create life from scratch: we transformed existing life into new life. Nor did we design and build a new chromosome from scratch. Rather, using only digitised information, we synthesised a modified version, a copy of the M. mycoides genome with 14 of its genes deleted and a "watermark" written in another 5000-plus base pairs. The result is not an "artificial" life form; it is a living, self-replicating cell that most microbiologists would find hard to distinguish from the progenitor cell, unless they sequenced its DNA.

I really recomend a another look at this article as well, it's very recent. This is the cutting edge of where biology is standing, and it's standing with computer science and information science.

www.newscientist.com...

"All living cells that we know of on this planet are 'DNA software'-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions," said Venter."We are now using computer software to design new DNA software."

The digital and biological worlds are becoming interchangeable, he added, describing how scientists now simply send each other the information to make DIY biological material rather than sending the material itself.

Venter also outlined a vision of small converter devices that can be attached to computers to make the structures from the digital information - perhaps the future could see us distributing information to make vaccines, foods and fuels around the world, or even to other planets. "This is biology moving at the speed of light," he said.

This is where we are at as far as kick starting life via programming. The implications are very interesting but threatening to some.

reply to post by squiz


And nothing in those articles you linked suggests a designer or provides evidence of such