Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design » Origin of life » Abiogenesis: The possible mechanisms to explain the origin of life

Abiogenesis: The possible mechanisms to explain the origin of life

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Otangelo


Admin
The possible mechanisms to explain the origin of life

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2515-abiogenesis-the-possible-mechanisms-to-explain-the-origin-of-life

Evolution by mutations and natural selection do not explain the origin of life, since evolution depends on the darwinian dynamic of replication with heritable variation.The only alternative to design are random unguided lucky events.

Either life emerged by a fortuitous accident, spontaneously through self-organization by unguided stochastic coincidence, natural events that turned into self-organization in an orderly manner without external direction, chemical non-biological, purely physico-dynamic kinetic processes and reactions influenced by environmental parameters, or through the direct intervention, creative force and activity of an intelligent cognitive agency, a powerful creator.

Or through the direct intervention and creative force of an intelligent agency, a powerful creator.

In an attempt to explain the origin of life, scientists propose a two-stage process of natural chemical evolution:  formation of organic molecules, which combine to make larger biomolecules; self-organization of these molecules into a living organism. The origin of life can not be explained through biological nor chemical evolution. Adaptation, mutation, and natural selection depend on DNA replication. Heredity is guaranteed by faithful DNA replication whereas evolution depends upon errors accompanying DNA replication. Neither can it be explained through physical laws. Life depends on codes and instructional complex information. This information can only be generated by when the arrangement of the code is free and unconstrained, and any of the four bases of the genetic code can be placed in any of the positions in the sequence to generate the information. The only alternative, if the action of a creative agency is excluded, would be spontaneous self-assembly by orderly aggregation of prebiotic elements and building blocks in a sequentially correct manner without external direction.

Rational Wiki states about abiogenesis:
Often brought up in the origins debate is how evolution does not explain the origin of life. Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes that take place once life has started.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Origin of life: A prebiotic route to DNA
The first polymeric molecules capable of storing information and reproducing themselves were randomly assembled from organic precursors that were available on the early Earth.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190618103721.htm

Natural selection is not a possible mechanism to explain the origin of life, since evolution depends on DNA replication

Stephen C. Meyer, The return of the God hypothesis:
The process of natural selection presupposes the differential reproduction of already living organisms and thus a preexisting mechanism of self-replication. Yet self-replication in all extant cells depends upon functional (and therefore sequence-specific, information-rich) proteins and nucleic acids. And the origin of such information-rich molecules is precisely what Oparin needed to explain. Thus, many rejected his postulation of prebiotic natural selection as question-begging. As the evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky insisted, “Pre-biological natural selection is a contradiction in terms.” Or as Christian de Duve explained, theories of prebiotic natural selection “need information which implies they have to presuppose what is to be explained in the first place.”


The Origin of the First Hereditary Replicators.
This process is still an unsolved problem. By itself, this transition is not an evolutionary one because, without hereditary replicators, no Darwinian evolution is possible.
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/10104

Darwin probably didn’t propose a theory for the origin of life simply because applying Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection to the emergence of life, as done by Dawkins (1976), is like comparing apples with pears (Johnson 2010). What’s more, the idea that a self-replicating molecule with an information content casually appeared in a primordial soup, as imagined by Dawkins (1976) (“At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator.”) appears to be statistically groundless (Yockey 1977).
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030259617

Is life a gamble? Scientist models universe to find out April 21, 2020
Scientists suspect that the complex life that slithers and crawls through every nook and cranny on Earth emerged from a random shuffling of non-living matter that ultimately spit out the building blocks of life.
https://www.livescience.com/origin-of-life-rna-universe-model.html

Darwin persuades us that the seemingly purposeful construction of living things can very often, and perhaps always, be attributed to the operation of natural selection. Natural selection requires three processes: reproduction, variation, and inheritance.

If you have things that are reproducing their kind;
if there are sometimes random variations, nevertheless, in the offspring; 
if such variations can be inherited; 
if some such variations can sometimes confer an advantage on their owners; 
if there is competition between the reproducing entities - 
if there is an overproduction so that not all will be able to survive to produce offspring themselves - 
then these entities will get better at reproducing their kind. What is needed for natural selection are things that conform to those 'ifs'. Self-replicating cells  are prerequisites for evolution. None of this was available prebiotically to explain the origin of the first life form. 

A. G. CAIRNS-SMITH Seven clues to the origin of life, page  36:
And if you ask me how the next stage happened, how the smallish 'molecules of life' came together to make the first reproducing evolving being, I will reply: 'With time, and more time, and the resource of oceans.' I will sweep my arms grandly about. 'Because, you see. in the absence of oxygen the oceans would have accumulated "the molecules of life". The oceans would have been vast bowls of nutritious soup. Chance could do the rest.

Koonin, the logic of chance
The emergence of the first replicator system, which represented the “Darwinian breakthrough,” was inevitably preceded by a succession of complex, difficult steps for which biological evolutionary mechanisms were not accessible

The role of natural selection in the origin of life
Unlike living systems that are products of and participants in evolution, these prebiotic chemical structures were not products of evolution. Not being yet intricately organized, they could have emerged as a result of ordinary physical and chemical processes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20407927

Alternative Pathways of Carbon Dioxide Fixation: Insights into the Early Evolution of Life? July 6, 2011
The fixation of inorganic carbon into organic material (autotrophy) is a prerequisite for life and sets the starting point of biological evolution.
https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-micro-090110-102801

Functional proteins from a random-sequence library
Anthony D. Keefe & Jack W. Szostak
Functional primordial proteins presumably originated from random sequences
https://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Keefe_Szostak_Nature_01.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0giOg_aZfFRKQALk7CB22nVIx32ShiN0Vp78cwtAYwmwQ_0RJicfxpR1M

When we consider how life might have arisen from nonliving matter, we must take into account the properties of the young Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, and climate, all of which were very different than they are today. Biologists postulate that complex biological molecules first arose through the random physical association of chemicals in that environment.
LIFE The Science of Biology, TENTH EDITION, page 3

Neither Evolution nor physical necessity are a driving force prior dna replication. The only two alternatives are either a) creation by an intelligent agency, or b) Random, unguided, undirected natural events by a lucky "accident". 

Koonin, the logic of chance, page 246
Evolution by natural selection and drift can begin only after replication with sufficient fidelity is established. Even at that stage, the evolution of translation remains highly problematic. The emergence of the first replicator system, which represented the “Darwinian breakthrough,” was inevitably preceded by a succession of complex, difficult steps for which biological evolutionary mechanisms were not accessible . The synthesis of nucleotides and (at least) moderate-sized polynucleotides could not have evolved biologically and must have emerged abiogenically—that is, effectively by chance abetted by chemical selection, such as the preferential survival of stable RNA species. Translation is thought to have evolved later via an ad hoc selective process.  Did you read this ???!! An ad-hoc process ?? 

Without code there can be no self-replication. Without self-replication, you can’t have reproduction. Without reproduction, you can’t have evolution or natural selection.

Heredity is guaranteed by faithful DNA replication whereas evolution depends upon errors accompanying DNA replication.  ( Furusawa, 1998 ) We hypothesize that the origin of life, that is, the origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection among self-replicating molecules, as is done by the RNA-world hypothesis. ( Vaneechoutte M )

Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2000;901:139-47.
The scientific origin of life. Considerations on the evolution of information, leading to an alternative proposal for explaining the origin of the cell, a semantically closed system
MARIO VANEECHOUTTE
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.sci-hub.ren/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2000.tb06273.x/full
We hypothesize that the origin of life, that is, the origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection among self-replicating molecules, as is done by the RNA-world hypothesis.
The hypothesis espoused here states that it is virtually impossible that the highly complicated system cell developed gradually around simple self-replicating molecules (RNA-hypercycles or autocatalytic peptide networks) by means of natural selection; as is proposed by, for example, the RNA-world hypothesis.  Despite searching quadrillions of molecules, it is clear that a spontaneous RNAreplicator is unlikely to occur. Reports of nucleotide and peptide self-replication still depend upon human intervention (for instance, by changing the environmental conditions between two rounds of replication or by denaturing the double strands). The problem of denaturing the double-nucleotide strand in a nonenzymatic manner has been overlooked and has contributed to a failure to establish molecular self-replication. The first cell, life, was born and natural selection (selection among variations on the theme of autonomous duplication) commenced.

Natural selection requires pre-existing life.
https://creation.com/ns-origin-of-life

Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life
https://www.academia.edu/1204161/Trevors_J.T._Abel_D.L._2004_Chance_and_necessity_do_not_explain_the_origin_of_life_Cell_Biology_International_28_729-739
Selection pressure cannot select nucleotides at the digital programming level where primary structures form. Genomes predetermine the phenotypes which natural selection only secondarily favors. Contentions that offer nothing more than long periods of time offer no mechanism of explanation for the derivation of genetic programming. No new informationis provided by such tautologies. The argument simply says it happened. As such, it is nothing more than blind belief. Science must provide rational theoretical mechanism, empirical support, prediction fulfillment, or some combination of these three. If none of these three are available, science should reconsider that molecular evolution of genetic cybernetics is a proven fact and press forward with new research approaches which are not obvious at this time. 5

I would like to plead with you, simply, please realize you cannot use the words `natural selection' loosely. Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction of terms."
(Dobzhansky, T.G., Discussion of "Synthesis of Nucleosides and Polynucleotides with Metaphoric Esters,", Oct. 27-30, 1963, Academic Press: New York NY, 1965, pp.309-310).

B.Alberts, Molecular Biology of the Cell, 5th edition, page 406
Self-Replicating Molecules Undergo Natural Selection
The three-dimensional folded structure of a polynucleotide affects its stability, its actions on other molecules, and its ability to replicate. Therefore, certain polynucleotides will be especially successful in any self-replicating mixture. Because errors inevitably occur in any copying process, new variant sequences of these polynucleotides will be generated over time.

Abiogenesis: The possible mechanisms to explain the origin of life Self_r10

Stephen Meyer, Darwin's doubt, page 6: 
Natural selection assumes the existence of living organisms with a capacity to reproduce. Yet self-replication in all extant cells depends upon information-rich proteins and nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), and the origin of such information-rich molecules is precisely what origin-of-life research needs to explain. That’s why Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the founders of the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis, can state flatly, “Pre-biological natural selection is a contradiction in terms.”5 Or, as Nobel Prize–winning molecular biologist and origin-of-life researcher Christian de Duve explains, theories of prebiotic natural selection fail because they “need information which implies they have to presuppose what is to be explained in the first place.

That means, evolution was not a driving force and acting for the emergence and origin of the first living organisms. The only remaining possible mechanisms are chemical reactions acting upon unregulated, aleatory events ( luck, chance), or physical necessity.  ( where chemical reactions are forced into taking a certain course of action. )  

Morowitz: THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF LIFE ON EARTH page 18
The Darwinian framework for selection requires support from other error-correcting mechanisms that operate in simpler contexts, to arrive at a mechanism sufficient to explain the emergence, overall organization, and long-term persistence of life from non-living precursors.

In a relatively short time, the ocean became a broth of these molecules, and given enough time, the right combination of molecules came together by pure chance to form a replicating entity of some kind that evolved into modern life.
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-origin-of-life

Physical necessity & Physical laws

Stephen C.Meyer, The return of the God hypothesis, page 216: 
Rather than having a genetic molecule capable of unlimited novelty, with all the unpredictable and aperiodic sequences that characterize informative texts, we would have a highly repetitive text awash in redundant sequences—much as happens in crystals. Indeed, in a crystal the forces of mutual chemical attraction do completely explain the sequential ordering of the constituent parts. Consequently, crystals cannot convey novel information. Bonding affinities, to the extent they exist, cannot be used to explain the origin of information. Self-organizing chemical affinities generate highly repetitive “order,” but not information; they create mantras, not messages

The nucleotide sequence of DNA and RNA  have an instructional function to make proteins and is NOT random but complex and specified, and not due to physical necessity or physical laws. And this is what events in a prebiotic land would need to produce: a minimal set of proteins .... and this kind of specification does not arise through chemical reactions ...... the result of a chemical reaction is not random. But the events dealing with an eventual chemical reaction would have been if there was not a mind guiding the events.

Life's Irreducible Structure, Michael Polanyi
Science mag, 1968
In Galileo's experiments on balls rolling down a slope, the angle of the slope was not derived from the laws of mechanics, but was chosen by Galileo. And as this choice of slopes was extraneous to the laws of mechanics, so is the shape and manufacture of test tubes extraneous to the laws of chemistry. The same thing holds for machinelike boundaries; their structure cannot be defined in terms of the laws which they harness. Nor can a vocabulary determine the content of a text, and so on. Therefore, if the structure of living things is a set of boundary conditions, this structure is extraneous to the laws of physics and chemistry which the organism is harnessing. Thus the morphology of living things transcends the laws of physics and chemistry.the codelike structure of DNA must be assumed to have come about by a sequence of chance variations established by natural selection. But this evolutionary aspect is irrelevant here; whatever may be the origin of a DNA configuration, it can function as a code only if its order is not due to the forces of potential energy. It must be as physically indeterminate as the sequence of words is on a printed page. As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule. It is this physical indeterminacy of the sequence that produces the improbability of occurrence of any particular sequence and thereby enables it to have a meaning-a meaning that has a mathematically determinate information content equal to the numerical improbability of the arrangement.

A deterministic answer assumes that the laws of physics and chemistry have causally and sequentially determined the obligatory series of events leading from inanimate matter to life – that each step is causally linked to the previous one and to the next one by the laws of nature. In principle, in a strictly deterministic situation, the state of a system at any point in time determines the future behavior of the system – with no random influences. To invoke a guided determinism toward the formation of life would only make sense if the construction of life was demonstrably a preferential, highly probable natural pathway.
Luisi, The Emergence of Life; From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology, page 21

Just like computer codes, the genetic code is arbitrary. There is no law of physics that says “1” has to mean “on” and “0” has to mean “off.” There’s no law of physics that says 10000001 has to code for the letter “A.” Similarly, there is no law of physics that says three Guanine molecules in a row have to code for Glycine. In both cases, the communication system operates from a freely chosen, fixed set of rules.
In all communication systems it is possible to label the encoder, the message and the decoder and determine the rules of the code.
The rules of communication systems are defined in advance by conscious minds. There are no known exceptions to this. Therefore we have 100% inference that the Genetic Code was designed by a conscious mind.

Physical laws which result in physical constraints,  where chemical reactions are forced into taking a certain course of action is an often cited possible mechanism for the origin of life. 
We are moving from chemistry to biology. Henceforward, life, it goes without saying, is independent of its chemical substrate, and its evolution does not follow paths that are predictable solely based on the laws of physics.
M. Gargaud · H. Martin · P. López-García T. Montmerle · R. Pascal Young Sun, Early Earth and the Origins of Life, page 95

Laurent Boiteau Prebiotic Chemistry: From Simple Amphiphiles to Protocell Models, page 3:
Spontaneous self-assembly occurs when certain compounds associate through noncovalent hydrogen bonds, electrostatic forces, and nonpolar interactions that stabilize orderly arrangements of small and large molecules.  The argument that chemical reactions in a primordial soup would not act upon pure chance, and that chemistry is not a matter of "random chance and coincidence, finds its refutation by the fact that the information stored in DNA is not constrained by chemistry. Yockey shows that the rules of any communication system are not derivable from the laws of physics.  He continues: “there is nothing in the physicochemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.” In other words, nothing in nonliving physics or chemistry obeys symbolic instructions.

The problem of information to explain the origin of life

Norbert Weiner - MIT Mathematician - Father of Cybernetics
"Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day."

It has to be explained: 

- a library index and fully automated information classification, storage and retrieval program ( chromosomes, and the gene regulatory network )
- The origin of the complex, codified, specified, instructional information stored in the genome and epigenetic codes to make the first living organism
- The origin of the genetic Code
- How it got nearly optimal for allowing additional information within protein-coding sequences
- How it got more robust than 1 million alternative possible codes
- The origin of the over twentythree epigenetic codes
- The origin of the information transmission system, that is the origin of the genetic code itself, encoding, transmission, decoding and translation
- The origin of the genetic cipher/translation, from digital ( DNA / mRNA ) to analog ( Protein )
- The origin of the hardware, that is DNA, RNA, amino acids, and carbohydrates for fuel generation
- The origin of the replication/duplication of the DNA
- The origin of the signal recognition particle
- The origin of the tubulin Code for correct direction to the final destination of proteins


Information theory cannot normally be used to predict how chemicals will react because some chemicals react with each other readily, and others only react very slowly. Others do not react with each other at all. Thus, the likelihood of two chemicals joining together depends on both the quantity of the chemicals present and their chemical properties. Information theory can easily deal with the effects of quantity, but it has no way to deal with chemical properties.
Stuart Pullen, Intelligent Design or Evolution? Why the Origin of Life and the Evolution of Molecular Knowledge Imply Design, page 88
http://lifesorigin.com/prebiotic-evolution4.pdf

Stephen C. Meyer observed:
“There are neither bonds nor bonding affinities—differing in strength or otherwise—that can explain the origin of the base sequencing that constitutes the information in the DNA molecule”
(Signature in the Cell, 243).

As Paul Davies lamented,
“We are still left with the mystery of where biological information comes from.… If the normal laws of physics can’t inject information, and if we are ruling out miracles, then how can life be predetermined and inevitable rather than a freak accident? How is it possible to generate random complexity and specificity together in a lawlike manner? We always come back to that basic paradox”
(Fifth Miracle, 258).

A law of nature could not alone explain how life began, because no conceivable law would compel a legion of atoms to follow precisely a prescribed sequence of assemblage.
Paul Davies, The origin of Life, page 17

Werner Gitt summarized it this way:
“A necessary requirement for generating meaningful information is the ability to select from alternatives and this requires an intelligent, volitional entity.… Unguided, random processes cannot do this—not in any amount of time because this selection process demands continuous guidance by intelligent beings that have a purpose”
(Without Excuse, 50–51).

Let's assume that we begin with the sequence R-T-X, and will add two amino acids "B" and "A" to it. If amino acid "B" is the most reactive amino acid, the sequence would be R-T-X-B-A. However, if "A" is the most reactive amino acid, then the sequence would be R-T-X-A-B. In a random chemical reaction, the sequence of amino acids would be determined by the relative reactivity of the different amino acids. The polymer chain found in natural proteins and DNA has a very precise sequence that does not correlate with the individual components' reaction rates. Since all of the amino acids have relatively similar structures, they all have similar reaction rates; they will all react at about the same rate making the precise sequence by random chemical reactions unthinkably unlikely. This is the problem of Chemical Reactivity.
http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-hopes-you-dont-know-chemistry-problem-co/


The Genetic Code
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Organic/gencode.html
DNA contains a true code. Being a true code means that the code is free and unconstrained; any of the four bases can be placed in any of the positions in the sequence of bases. Their sequence is not determined by the chemical bonding. There are hydrogen bonds between the base pairs and each base is bonded to the sugar phosphate backbone, but there are no bonds along the longitudional axis of DNA. The bases occur in the complementary base pairs A-T and G-C, but along the sequence on one side the bases can occur in any order, like the letters of a language used to compose words and sentences. Since nucleotides can be arranged freely into any informational sequence, physical necessity could not be a driving mechanism.

Abiogenesis is the process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter. Scientists speculate that life may have arisen as a result of random chemical processes happening to produce self-replicating molecules.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Paul Davies conceded, “Unfortunately, before Darwinian evolution can start, a certain minimum level of complexity is required. But how was this initial complexity achieved? When pressed, most scientists wring their hands and mutter the incantation ‘Chance.’ So, did chance alone create the first self-replicating molecule?” (Fifth Miracle, 138).

If design or physical necessity is discarded, the only remaining possible mechanism for the origin of life is chance/luck.

Abiogenesis: The possible mechanisms to explain the origin of life The_ge10

Abiogenesis: The possible mechanisms to explain the origin of life Koonin10


Calculations of life beginning through unguided, natural, random events.
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2508-calculations-of-life-beginning-through-unguided-natural-random-events

1. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Y7wv8TsUEQkJ:https://osf.io/7ke83/download/%3Fversion%3D4%26displayName%3DOrigin%2520of%2520Life%2520%2520%2520Stout%2520%2520Matzko%2520%25202018%2520%2520OSF-2019-05-05T05%253A50%253A03.408Z.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=br



Last edited by Otangelo on Mon Apr 05, 2021 4:26 pm; edited 68 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
Apparently, the “mechanism worldview” was formulated as a bedrock of scientific method by Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the influential Royal Society, who claimed that all phenomena can be explained
exhaustively by the mechanical operation of physicochemical forces. Physical forces can arise as effects of causes arising at two basic levels:

(1) due to interactions between physical objects (which are, of course, mediated by physical laws) and
(2) interactions between physical objects directly with the physical laws. A third element is also allowed:
(3) “random,” “spontaneous,” or “acausal” phenomena.

Examples are collision of physical objects (1), free fall (2), and radioactive decay or spontaneous emission (3).

As a test of our new classification of teleologies, we now compare it to that of Mayr ( 2004 ) . He defined five classes:

(1) teleomatic,
(2) teleonomic,
(3) purposive behavior,
(4) adapted features, and
(5) cosmic teleology.

It is straightforward that Mayr’s first teleomatic class

(1) corresponds to cases when physical laws determine the output “automatically.” His teleonomic class
(2) corresponds to cases when the behavior is determined by programs. “All teleonomic behavior is characterized by two components. It is guided by ‘a program’ and it depends on the existence of some endpoint, goal, or terminus that is ‘foreseen’ in the program that regulates the behavior or process. This endpoint might be a structure (in development), a physiological function, the attainment of a geographic position (in migration), or a ‘consummatory act’ in behavior” Mayr ( 2004 , 51). He also includes the behavior of human artifacts like machines into this class. With the recognition that tortoises have short stocky legs adapted for a certain function (namely, climbing, crawling, and walking), and as such represent behavioral programs, we can classify the legs of tortoises as corresponding to our class (B). It is easy to see that physiological functions like the heart pumping blood, migration of birds, or consummatory acts, as well as the complexity of machines, can be characterized by algorithmic complexity, which can be measured in bits, con firming the classification of teleonomic behavior into our class (B).
Mayr’s category
(3) is that of purposeful behavior. We classified purposeful behavior into class (C) and gave it a somewhat definite meaning.
(4) His fourth category “adapted features” is classified into our class (B). This classification is confirmed by the fact that the complexity of adapted features can be characterized by algorithmic complexity and can be measured in bits. Mayr refutes his own fifth class,
(5) “cosmic teleology,” with the following argument: “Natural selection provides a satisfactory explanation for the course of organic evolution and makes an invoking of supernatural teleological forces unnecessary. The removal of the mentioned four material processes from the formerly so heterogeneous category ‘teleological’ leaves no residue. This proves the nonexistence of cosmic teleology” (Mayr, 2004 ). 

 “Neither teleomatic nor teleonomic ( mindless programs ) determinism nor Natural selection does provide a satisfactory explanation for the course of physicochemical origin of life nor organic evolution and makes an invoking of supernatural teleological forces necessary. No material processes are capable of the feat. This proves the existence of cosmic teleology”

Genetic programs provide a clear demarcation between inanimate and living processes.

Genetic and epigenetic information controls and determines the generation of algorithmic complexity, organismal form and architecture, and the characteristically biological behavior and processes. Control based on information is manifest and observable in the trajectory of the living. Genetic and epigenetic programs play an important part in governing dynamic biological behavior, they are tools for the activity of the biological principle that continuously
generates the algorithmic complexity of biological behavior which permits change and adaptation to the environment.

Intelligent design is always tracked back to the intention of agents. In the case of man-made artifacts such as instructional complex blueprints of a factory, and the factory thereof made based on the information of these blueprints, both are the product of an intelligent engineer. It makes no sense, in the case of naturally occurring instructional information stored in DNA, and cell factories, made based on that information stored in DNA, to conclude that the designer was not an intelligent engineer. It is obviously the solution to postulate God, even if we cannot fathom or understand why there is eternal existence, rather than not. Life is eternal and ultimate, and a necessary intelligent designer is at the bottom of all existence. The existence of the first principle, an intelligent conscious mind, is validated based on all our empirical and theoretical knowledge. Therefore, a creator is not improbable but, on the contrary, the most probable, actually, universally reliable fact derived from all scientific facts. 

No scientific experiment has been able to come even close to synthesize the basic building blocks of life and reproduce a  self-replicating Cell in the Laboratory through self-assembly and autonomous organization.  The total lack of any kind of experimental evidence leading to the re-creation of life; not to mention the spontaneous emergence of life… is the most humiliating embarrassment to the proponents of naturalism and the whole so-called “scientific establishment” around it… because it undermines the worldview of who wants naturalism to be true. Darwinian evolution by natural selection, drift, and gene flow, the gene-centric view has failed to offer a consistent powerful explanatory scope in the biological sciences. The evidence has unraveled far more complex mechanisms, namely pre-programmed instructional complex INFORMATION encoded in various genetic and epigenetic languages and communication by various signaling codes through various signaling networks which leads us to the requirement of implementation by an intelligent designer. We can now safely say that the appearance of design in living creatures points straightforward to a designer. 







Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models. Physics of Life Reviews 3:211-228. Abel, D.L. and J.T. Trevors. (2006)
https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1571064506000224

Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins Durston, K.K., D.K.Y. Chiu, D.L. Abel and J.T. Trevors (2007)
https://tbiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4682-4-47

Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life Trevors, J.T. and Abel, D.L. (2004)
https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15563395

Roscoe T Kane Life might well be an inevitable consequence of the laws of nature. Consider the Everett Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In it, life needs no maker and has no luck, everything that could possibly happen must happen in some world.

Dynamic kinetic stability (DKS) 1

Recently, one of us (A.P.) has described a new stability kind in nature, seemingly overlooked in modern scientific thought, which we have termed dynamic kinetic stability (DKS) . That stability kind, applicable solely to persistent replicating systems, whether chemical or biological, derives directly from the powerful kinetic character and the inherent unsustainability of the replication process. However, for the replication reaction to be kinetically unsustainable, the reverse reaction, in which the replicating system reverts back to its component building blocks, must be very slow when compared with the forward reaction; the replication reaction must be effectively irreversible. That condition, in turn, means the system must be maintained in a far-from-equilibrium state , and that continuing requirement is satisfied through the replicating system being open and continually fed activated component building blocks. Note that the above description is consistent with Prigogine's non-equilibrium thermodynamic approach, which stipulates that self-organized behaviour is associated with irreversible processes within the nonlinear regime . From the above, it follows that the DKS term would not be applicable to an equilibrium mixture of some oligomeric replicating entity together with its interconverting component building blocks.

1. http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/3/120190#sec-5



Last edited by Admin on Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:12 am; edited 8 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

3Abiogenesis: The possible mechanisms to explain the origin of life Empty Selforganization Wed May 31, 2017 5:44 am

Otangelo


Admin
Selforganization 1

In the book: Young Sun, Early Earth and the Origins of Life, we read:
Every living being consists of a collection of molecules that are constantly renewed and which appear to coordinate their evolution. We are therefore dealing with organized systems, the emergence of which, perforce, implies a process of self-organization. However, the spontaneous formation of an ordered system from disorder contradicts our everyday experience. We all know that over time, the most beautiful building is inevitably reduced to ruins. In physical or chemical terms, this tendency is expressed as a quantity, entropy, which expresses the degree of disorder in a system. The second law of thermodynamics expresses the idea that the entropy of an isolated system increases, and thus that disorder tends to increase. An isolated chemical system must, therefore, evolve towards an equilibrium state in which the concentration of different chemical species will be determined by their individual energy levels and the laws of statistics. So how could a system that was as disordered as that of the primitive Earth, with an incredible diversity of forms and structures, give rise to life? The answer lies in the fact that the process of self-organization, which is linked to the emergence and development of life, concerns only one part of the system. Hence, the formation of an ordered structure in a sub-system will be compensated by an increase in disorder in its environment, such that overall, the entropy does not decrease. That means then that exchanges of energy and matter are the basis of the dynamics of self-organization.

Since the authors apply methodological naturalism and exclude design a priori, they are left with the only alternative to design, that is self-organisation. Mount Improbable is, however, higher to climb, to get life the first go, then keep it going. That implies a paradox: If the inorganic matter had the unbound drive to get self-organized and become alive, why do thermodynamic mechanisms, and evolution, permit life to die? Why the cycle oself-replication, , which had to be fully setup as well right from the beginning, to perpetuate life for millennia, if not millions of years, but living organisms die? If the unbound drive of atoms to self-organize and get alive, why not the unbound drive to KEEP alive? We know for instance, that lobsters don't die. They just get bigger. Turtles live for centuries. If the struggle is for survival, why do not more species steal DNA from other species like bdelloids? why can Glass Sponges live for 15 thousand years, but evolution has not helped us to get so far?   Turritopsis doohmii jellyfish  has found a way to cheat death by actually reversing its aging process. If the jellyfish is injured or sick, it returns to its polyp stage over a three-day period, transforming its cells into a younger state that will eventually grow into adulthood all over again. If and molecules drive for survival, why have not many more organisms evolved in a convergent manner, and adopted this extraordinary mechanism? 

Moreover, the inescapable evolution towards disorder and the state of thermodynamic equilibrium does not predict in any way the duration of the chemical reactions involved, which may occur in a fraction of a second or, on the other hand, over a period that is reckoned in millions of years. The speed of this evolution depends on the dynamics of the reaction (the subject of chemical kinetics) and not on thermodynamics, which only predicts the sense in which it unfolds. In chemistry, it is difficult to envisage self-organization without having recourse to the heterogeneous nature of matter on a microscopic scale, that is to the fact that matter is not indefinitely divisible. If that were the case, how could it form complex structures? It was undoubtedly this type of reasoning that led, in antiquity, certain philosophers, the best known of which remains Democritus, to postulate the existence of atoms as being the basis of matter. The difficulty comes in passing from this microscopic heterogeneity to a single macroscopic entity that involves a coordination in the arrangement or the movement of a multiplicity of atoms or molecules (either within a three-dimensional structure or within an entire organism). The properties that molecules have of associating with one another may give rise to the formation of crystals or other macroscopic structures such as vesicles (such as those that form cellular membranes ) or the micelles of surfactants. Structures that have a dynamical character may also appear through amplification mechanisms that are highly efficient, such as replication or autocatalysis. These mechanisms are at work in what are known as oscillating reactions, which are often considered chemical curiosities, such as the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction . The concentration of certain intermediates then varies until the reagents are exhausted, in a cyclic or stochastic


1. M. Gargaud · H. Martin · P. López-García -  Young Sun, Early Earth and the Origins of Life page 92

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
The possible mechanisms to explain the origin of life
In an attempt to explain the origin of life, scientists propose a two-stage process of natural chemical evolution:  formation of organic molecules, which combine to make larger biomolecules; self-organization of these molecules into a living organism. The origin of life can not be explained through biological nor chemical evolution. Adaptation, mutation, and natural selection depend on DNA replication. Heredity is guaranteed by faithful DNA replication whereas evolution depends upon errors accompanying DNA replication. Neither can it be explained through physical laws. Life depends on codes and instructional complex information. This information can only be generated by when the arrangement of the code is free and unconstrained, and any of the four bases of the genetic code can be placed in any of the positions in the sequence to generate the information. The only alternative, if the action of a creative agency is excluded, would be spontaneous self-assembly by orderly aggregation of prebiotic elements and building blocks in a sequentially correct manner without external direction.

Natural selection is not a possible mechanism to explain the origin of life since evolution depends on DNA replication
When we consider how life might have arisen from non-living matter, we must take into account the properties of the young Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, and climate, all of which were very different than they are today. Biologists postulate that complex biological molecules first arose through the random physical association of chemicals in that environment.
LIFE The Science of Biology, TENTH EDITION, page 3

Neither Evolution nor a physical necessity is a driving force prior to DNA replication. The only two alternatives are either a) creation by an intelligent agency, or b) Random, unguided, undirected natural events by a lucky "accident". 

Koonin, the logic of chance, page 266
Evolution by natural selection and drift can begin only after replication with sufficient fidelity is established. Even at that stage, the evolution of translation remains highly problematic. The emergence of the first replicator system, which represented the “Darwinian breakthrough,” was inevitably preceded by a succession of complex, difficult steps for which biological evolutionary mechanisms were not accessible. The synthesis of nucleotides and (at least) moderate-sized polynucleotides could not have evolved biologically and must have emerged abiogenically—that is, effectively by chance abetted by chemical selection, such as the preferential survival of stable RNA species. Translation is thought to have evolved later via an ad hoc selective process.  Did you read this ???!! An ad-hoc process ?? 

Without code, there can be no self-replication. Without self-replication, you can’t have a reproduction. Without reproduction, you can’t have evolution or natural selection.

Heredity is guaranteed by faithful DNA replication whereas evolution depends upon errors accompanying DNA replication.  ( Furusawa, 1998 ) We hypothesize that the origin of life, that is, the origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection among self-replicating molecules, as is done by the RNA-world hypothesis. ( Vaneechoutte M )

Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2000;901:139-47.
The scientific origin of life. Considerations on the evolution of information, leading to an alternative proposal for explaining the origin of the cell, a semantically closed system
MARIO VANHOUTTE
We hypothesize that the origin of life, that is, the origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection among self-replicating molecules, as is done by the RNA-world hypothesis.
The hypothesis espoused here states that it is virtually impossible that the highly complicated system cell developed gradually around simple self-replicating molecules (RNA-hypercycles or autocatalytic peptide networks) by means of natural selection; as is proposed by, for example, the RNA-world hypothesis.  Despite searching quadrillions of molecules, it is clear that a spontaneous RNA replicator is unlikely to occur. Reports of nucleotide and peptide self-replication still depend upon human intervention (for instance, by changing the environmental conditions between two rounds of replication or by denaturing the double strands). The problem of denaturing the double-nucleotide strand in a non-enzymatic manner has been overlooked and has contributed to a failure to establish molecular self-replication. The first cell, life, was born and natural selection (selection among variations on the theme of autonomous duplication) commenced.

Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life
Selection pressure cannot select nucleotides at the digital programming level where primary structures form. Genomes predetermine the phenotypes which natural selection only secondarily favours. Contentions that offer nothing more than long periods of time offer no mechanism of explanation for the derivation of genetic programming. No new information is provided by such tautologies. The argument simply says it happened. As such, it is nothing more than blind belief. Science must provide a rational theoretical mechanism, empirical support, prediction fulfillment, or some combination of these three. If none of these three is available, science should reconsider that molecular evolution of genetic cybernetics is a proven fact and press forward with new research approaches which are not obvious at this time. 5

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum