The origin(s) of replication and translation

[bob b]

The central problem: the emergence of biological evolution, the inherent paradoxes of the origin of replication and translation systems, and the limitations of the RNA world

The origin(s) of replication and translation (hereinafter OORT) is qualitatively different from other problems in evolutionary biology and might be viewed as the hardest problem in all of biology. As soon as sufficiently fast and accurate genome replication emerges, biological evolution takes off. I use this general term to include Darwinian natural selection[16] along with other major evolutionary mechanisms, such as fixation of neutral mutations that provide material for subsequent adaptation [17], exaptation of "spandrels" (features that originally emerge as evolutionary by-products but are subsequently utilized for new functions) [18], and duplication of genome regions followed by mutational and functional diversification [19]. All these processes that, together, comprise biological evolution become possible and, actually, inevitable once and only once efficient replication of the genetic material is established.

The crucial question, then, is how was the minimal complexity attained that is required to achieve the threshold replication fidelity. In even the simplest modern systems, such as RNA viruses with the replication fidelity of only ~10-3, replication is catalyzed by a complex protein replicase; even disregarding accessory subunits present in most replicases, the main catalytic subunit is a protein that consists of at least 300 amino acids [20]. The replicase, of course, is produced by translation of the respective mRNA which is mediated by a tremendously complex molecular machinery. Hence the first paradox of OORT: to attain the minimal complexity required for a biological system to start on the path of biological evolution, a system of a far greater complexity, i.e., a highly evolved one, appears to be required. How such a system could evolve, is a puzzle that defeats conventional evolutionary thinking.

http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/15

 

[Skeptic]

The crucial question, then, is how was the minimal complexity attained that is required to achieve the threshold replication fidelity. ... How such a system could evolve, is a puzzle that defeats conventional evolutionary thinking.

Therefore, since several unanswered empirical questions still remain, you are implying we should abandon the methodological naturalism of science and jump to supernaturalistic conclusions?

Other than the Argument from Incredulity ("... an argument that absence of proof is evidence of absence"), what justifies this supernaturalistic jump?

 

[Frank Ernest]

Therefore, since several unanswered empirical questions still remain, you are implying we should abandon the methodological naturalism of science and jump to supernaturalistic conclusions?

Other than the Argument from Incredulity ("... an argument that absence of proof is evidence of absence"), what justifies this supernaturalistic jump?

I am incredulous that you consider supernaturalism the only alternative. Looks to me like you are the one jumping to conclusions.

 

[The Barbarian]

And I'm wondering if you have any evidence at all for a third category, exclusive of natural and supernatural.

Sounds a little ad hoc to me.

Anyway, as more and more evidence accumulates, scientists learn more and more about early life. And soon, that gap will be far too small to hide even the tiny god of creationism.

 

[bob b]

Therefore, since several unanswered empirical questions still remain, you are implying we should abandon the methodological naturalism of science and jump to supernaturalistic conclusions?

Science ordinarily works well because God has created an orderly universe that works according to the laws He has created. Science has been so successful in both discovering the laws and using them that some scientists want to pretend that the creation of the universe and life itself must also be natural.

In a sense they want to be like gods.

--------

I posted the quotations to demonstrate that at least some people have reached the same conclusion I did 24 years ago: the DNA/RNA/protein interlocking complex could not have arisen according to the ToE.

But the author did not then reach the correct final solution. Instead he invoked the mathematical concept of infinity and proposed that in an infinity of universes all things are possible.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Science ordinarily works well because God has created an orderly universe that works according to the laws He has created. Science has been so successful in both discovering the laws and using them that some scientists want to pretend that the creation of the universe and life itself must also be natural.

In a sense they want to be like gods.

Bob, I'm going to spell it out for you again. Don't pretend you understand what makes another human being think or behave as they do- especially with such balderdash as claiming that they want to be like gods. Science is based on naturalism. Therefore the search for naturalistic answers is (duh) what science is concerned with. Just because you think science should be just one big knee-bending session to your particular idea of the creator and how he totally made all of this just like really cool and all certainly doesn't mean it has any validity.
--------

I posted the quotations to demonstrate that at least some people have reached the same conclusion I did 24 years ago: the DNA/RNA/protein interlocking complex could not have arisen according to the ToE.

But the author did not then reach the correct final solution. Instead he invoked the mathematical concept of infinity and proposed that in an infinity of universes all things are possible.

The correct final soultion? You presumption is as boundless as it is horrifyingly amusing- like a train wreck in slow motion with clown music piped in. Have a question about the universe? Ask Bob, God's self-appointed prophet of the laws of nature! He's right and everybody else is wrong! Just ask him and he'll tell you! Go fold some proteins or something.

 

[bob b]

Bob, I'm going to spell it out for you again. Don't pretend you understand what makes another human being think or behave as they do- especially with such balderdash as claiming that they want to be like gods. Science is based on naturalism. Therefore the search for naturalistic answers is (duh) what science is concerned with. Just because you think science should be just one big knee-bending session to your particular idea of the creator and how he totally made all of this just like really cool and all certainly doesn't mean it has any validity.

You are really funny. First you tell me not to "pretend you understand what makes another human being think or behave as they do" and then you proceed to tell me what makes me think and behave as I do.

The correct final soultion? You presumption is as boundless as it is horrifyingly amusing- like a train wreck in slow motion with clown music piped in. Have a question about the universe? Ask Bob, God's self-appointed prophet of the laws of nature! He's right and everybody else is wrong! Just ask him and he'll tell you!

God tells us, not me. But I forgot, God is not in your world view.

Go fold some proteins or something.

Funny you should mention that. I was just about to start a new thread with the latest about it. :chuckle:

 

[PlastikBuddha]

You are really funny. First you tell me not to "pretend you understand what makes another human being think or behave as they do" and then you proceed to tell me what makes me think and behave as I do.

That's because you are an individual, not a large group of people who aren't actually here to defend themselves. I fully expect you to respond to my accusations. Pretty funny, eh? Now why don't you try explaining how I'm wrong instead of trying to change the subject.

God tells us, not me. But I forgot, God is not in your world view.

God has no place in a scientific worldview. There are areas of human experience where God may be relevent- faith, hope, prayer, philosophy- but not in science. Once you start saying "Goddidit" you're not really playing in the sciences, anymore.

Funny you should mention that. I was just about to start a new thread with the latest about it. :chuckle:

Not funny, really- just predictable. You're like a broken recordplayer sometimes.

 

[bob b]

PlastikBuddha,
So how about making some comment on the article which I posted the link to?

What do you think about the "infinity of universes" idea to explain how the DNA/RNA/protein interlocking system first arose?

Why would a scientist feel the need to propose such an idea in that online journal which is peer reviewed?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

PlastikBuddha,
So how about making some comment on the article which I posted the link to?

What do you think about the "infinity of universes" idea to explain how the DNA/RNA/protein interlocking system first arose?

Why would a scientist feel the need to propose such an idea in that online journal which is peer reviewed?

Sounds like a cheap trick that is not experimentally verifiable. It is of no interest to me, or I suspect, to most biologists. Why does he feel the need to publish? Because that is what scientists do- think up ideas and publish them. This one seems cumbersome and unnecessary. We will either find an acceptable theory of abiogenesis or move in a different direction. There is work in those areas, and I will continue to watch with interest.

 

[bob b]

Sounds like a cheap trick that is not experimentally verifiable.

I doubt if the author felt it was a "cheap trick". I think it more likely that he was concerned over the long term dilemma of how the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system could have evolved by Darwinian mechanisms. This is the same thing that caused me 24 years ago to reject neoDarwinism and start searching for alternatives (as the author is doing).

It is of no interest to me, or I suspect, to most biologists. Why does he feel the need to publish? Because that is what scientists do- think up ideas and publish them. This one seems cumbersome and unnecessary. We will either find an acceptable theory of abiogenesis or move in a different direction. There is work in those areas, and I will continue to watch with interest.

I wonder how long it will take to "move in a different direction" as I started to do 24 years ago when I first discovered that the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system could not have arisen "naturally"?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I doubt if the author felt it was a "cheap trick". I think it more likely that he was concerned over the long term dilemma of how the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system could have evolved by Darwinian mechanisms. This is the same thing that caused me 24 years ago to reject neoDarwinism and start searching for alternatives (as the author is doing).



I wonder how long it will take to "move in a different direction" as I started to do 24 years ago when I first discovered that the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system could not have arisen "naturally"?

"Discovered"? You haven't discovered anything, just jumped to an unwarranted conclusion. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back there.

 

[bob b]

"Discovered"? You haven't discovered anything, just jumped to an unwarranted conclusion.

The initial conclusion reached was that the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system could not have arisen by Darwinian processes.

That is the same conclusion that the author reached and was the impetus for his paper seeking an alternative.

Naturally no biologists would ever dare to suggest the obvious alternative:

God created the first life in multiple types with the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system already intact and functional in all of them.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

The initial conclusion reached was that the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system could not have arisen by Darwinian processes.

That is the same conclusion that the author reached and was the impetus for his paper seeking an alternative.

Naturally no biologists would ever dare to suggest the obvious alternative:

God created the first life in multiple types with the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system already intact and functional in all of them.

The ideas in the paper are hardly definitive. The alternative is hardly obvious. Your comprehension is highly selective.

 

[mighty_duck]

The initial conclusion reached was that the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system could not have arisen by Darwinian processes.

Could they have arisen by a different natural process?

If you answer no, then you would have to prove a universal negative before jumping to your God idea. Good luck.

 

[bob b]

Could they have arisen by a different natural process?

For many years after I first concluded that the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system could not have arisen by Darwinian processes, I looked in the scientific literature to see if an alternative had been proposed. Nothing. The paper invoking an infinity of universes is the latest. Before that was Crick's idea of the Earth being "seeded" by intelligent aliens. And a similar idea from Fred Hoyle.

If you answer no, then you would have to prove a universal negative before jumping to your God idea. Good luck.

But eventually I had to admit that Genesis probably had it right. And "multiple types at the beginning" also neatly solves the problem of the lack of any significant number of transitional forms. As well as "convergent evolution" and on and on.

 

[mighty_duck]

For many years after I first concluded that the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system could not have arisen by Darwinian processes, I looked in the scientific literature to see if an alternative had been proposed. Nothing. The paper invoking an infinity of universes is the latest. Before that was Crick's idea of the Earth being "seeded" by intelligent aliens. And a similar idea from Fred Hoyle.

You are laying down a false dillema instead of answering my question. You seem to be answering this question:

Which of the following is the most likely explanation of origins:
1. Darwinian process.
2. Infinity of universes.
3. Aliens.
4. The Christian God.

But this is not a good question. I asked you to rule out natural processes altogether, not just the current proposed mechanisms. The line of thinking you are proposing is to go from "we don't know" to "it couldn't have happened naturally" (and therefore the need for the supernatural). This is faulty logic - namely a non-sequitur.

 

[Frank Ernest]

You are laying down a false dillema instead of answering my question. You seem to be answering this question:

Which of the following is the most likely explanation of origins:
1. Darwinian process.
2. Infinity of universes.
3. Aliens.
4. The Christian God.

But this is not a good question. I asked you to rule out natural processes altogether, not just the current proposed mechanisms. The line of thinking you are proposing is to go from "we don't know" to "it couldn't have happened naturally" (and therefore the need for the supernatural). This is faulty logic - namely a non-sequitur.

One cannot rule out natural processes in nature. Likewise one cannot rule out supernatural processes as natural processes may be reflective of them, not mutually exclusive to them. To follow your reasoning, I would have to beg the question: I see only nature. I have natural explanations for what I see. Therefore, only nature and natural explanations can exist.

 

[mighty_duck]

One cannot rule out natural processes in nature. Likewise one cannot rule out supernatural processes as natural processes may be reflective of them, not mutually exclusive to them. To follow your reasoning, I would have to beg the question: I see only nature. I have natural explanations for what I see. Therefore, only nature and natural explanations can exist.

Welcome to atheism Frank!

It may be difficult to think that you should believe only what you have evidence for, but you are guaranteed to make better decisions regarding reality. I've never seen evidence for a flying unicorn, the Loch Ness monster, or "supernatural processes". Believing in any of them would be foolish.

 

[bob b]

Welcome to atheism Frank!

It may be difficult to think that you should believe only what you have evidence for, but you are guaranteed to make better decisions regarding reality. I've never seen evidence for a flying unicorn, the Loch Ness monster, or "supernatural processes". Believing in any of them would be foolish.

Believing that "natural" processes created the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system is in the same category: there is no evidence for such a thing.