Posted on 04/04/2014 5:25:29 PM PDT by Moseley
This is an animated GIF of the changes in a Peruvian river's course between 1984-2012. How did Nature get "smart enuf" to know where the new course should be? Nature "selected" a new course for the river based on "random" environmental factors (not really random, of course, if we thoroughly understood all the processes). The river is like the relentless flow of reproduction; nature "selects" its direction, but in no more conscious or goal-oriented a manner than it does the river's path.
How does the interaction of two random systems evolve into highly organized and stable DNA, which is the antithesis of "random?"
Well, first, I don't think you need the second system--natural selection--to get to DNA. That just determines which DNA keeps getting passed on. Second, I think an answer might be "we don't fully know yet." But of course, people are hard at work trying to figure it out, and in any case "we don't know yet" isn't the same as "it can't."
Thanks for your response.
Abstract: The classical view of information flow within a cell, encoded by the famous central dogma of molecular biology, states that the instructions for producing amino acid chains are read from specific segments of DNA, just as computer instructions are read from a tape, transcribed to informationally equivalent RNA molecules, and finally executed by the cellular machinery responsible for synthesizing proteins. While this has always been an oversimplified model that did not account for a multitude of other processes occurring inside the cell, its limitations are today more dramatically apparent than ever. Ironically, in the same years in which researchers accomplished the unprecedented feat of decoding the complete genomes of higher-level organisms, it has become clear that the information stored in DNA is only a small portion of the total, and that the overall picture is much more complex than the one outlined by the dogma.DNA has the following:The cell is, at its core, an information processing machine based on molecular technology, but the variety of types of information it handles, the ways in which they are represented, and the mechanisms that operate on them go far beyond the simple model provided by the dogma. In this chapter we provide an overview of the most important aspects of information processing that can be found in a cell, describing their specific characteristics, their role, and their interconnections. Our goal is to outline, in an intuitive and nontechnical way, several different views of the cell using the language of information theory.
Information Processing at the Cellular Level: Beyond the Dogma by Alberto Riva
1. Functional InformationHow could such a system form randomly without any intelligence, and totally unguided?
2. Encoder
3. Error Correction
4. Decoder
What would come first - the encoder, error correction, or the decoder? How and where did the functional information originate?
…it is increasingly clear that the long-reigning neo-Darwinian paradigm is collapsing – and despite many efforts to deny what is obvious – clearly “the emperor has no clothes.” The extremely sophisticated hardware and software systems that enable life simply cannot be built by any trial and error system. In particular – it is very clear that software can never be developed one binary bit at a time. Apart from a fully functional pre-existing hardware/software system, a single bit has absolutely no meaning. I feel that if we are to preserve our scientific integrity, we must acknowledge that we have a major explanatory problem, and we need to go back to the drawing board in terms of understanding the origin of biological information.
- John Sanford
There is no known origin for the rise of information (successful communication, Shannon) in nature. Without that, the theory of a common ancestor is another 'just so' story.
The fluid dynamics of increased velocity, deepening and bank erosion on the outside of bends, along with slowing, silt deposition (shallowing) and bank building on the inside of stream bends is very well understood. So much so, in fact, that, given the daily flow volume, that meandering action can be modeled, predicted and drawn with high precision.
No "intelligence" or "purpose" on the part of the river is required (or, indeed, exists.)
~~~~~~~~~~
The function of a river is to transport water from its source/inflow points to the sea. IF there were any "selection" at work to "evolve" the river to a higher functional state, we would see rivers inexorably straightening their courses over time.
Never happened. Never will.
At one point in your .GIF, you can see the inevitable effect of a "cutoff", wherein the river "punches through" a narrowed meander -- leaving the course temporarily "evolved upward" (straighter at that point).
But, then the second law of thermodynamics takes its inevitable effect -- and the course of the river "DEVOLVES" back to its sluggish, meandering state.
Always has. Always will.
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Upward evolution" is a no-win game. The Second Law makes it so.
Between cut-and paste from the old Crevo wars and misstatements of science and scholasticism this discussion has become pretty pointless.
But many can come and warm their hands on the straw men afire.
Lurkers: I assure you many of us Conservatives do understand science, stochastic processes, the realty of TToE and what a Scientific Theory is (the real definition, not the straw man definitions posited).
Please, dear lurker, know that.
"Lurker?!?" LOL!! I suggest you look up my FR sign-on date...
~~~~~~~~~~~
FWIW & FYI, I'm a physical chemist, (now retired) who made a very conscious choice of focus in my final baccalaureate semester. I had only four available hours to fill an 18-hour class load. The choice was between an advanced genetics course (which would have resulted in a second BS in biology (med tech) -- or an additional course in thermodynamics.
Knowledgeable and enlightened dissatisfaction with the illogic of the ToE caused me to make the very logical choice of thermodynamics -- and I willingly accepted that I would forever be a chemist with a 'mere' BS minor in biology.
I have never regretted that decision.
~~~~~~~~~
But, be aware that, as a physical scientist writing about matters biological, I do so with a considerable background in that discipline, as well.
Snarky and flippant ego-gratification-seekers should bear that in mind...
>>”Lurker?!?” LOL!! I suggest you look up my FR sign-on date...<<
I was not addressing you.
~~~~~~~~~~
"To: TXnMA"
~~~~~~~~~~
Ah, so desu ka?
I was addressing lurkers who may be reading the thread.
As you know, FR does not have a “cc” function on posts so as a courtesy I kept you in the To: line.
Forgive my lack of clarity on that particular matter.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Forgiveness readily granted, FRiend!
And thank you for (unwittingly) "playing straight man" for an explanation that I needed to make, anyway... '-)
>>And thank you for (unwittingly) “playing straight man” for an explanation that I needed to make, anyway... ‘-)<<
And I am sure the lurkers I addressed will give said explanation all the attention it is due.
indeed... ‘-)
Bookmark
Do you have a link for that? I thought that predicting the exact course of a meandering river was an extremely inexact science at best.
No "intelligence" or "purpose" on the part of the river is required (or, indeed, exists.)
Yes, I know. That was why I used the analogy.
The function of a river is to transport water from its source/inflow points to the sea. IF there were any "selection" at work to "evolve" the river to a higher functional state, we would see rivers inexorably straightening their courses over time.
That seems to me like an odd way to describe a river. If by "function" you just mean what it does, then I agree with you. But if you mean what it's for, then you're introducing a standard for judgment that I don't think you've justified. The fact that you then go on to describe a straight river as having a "higher functional state" than a meandering one makes me think you are using the value-laden definition, and that illustrates how groundless it is. A river has a lot more functions than just getting water from A to B, some of which a meandering river does better than a straight one--providing riparian habitat, for example.
But, then the second law of thermodynamics takes its inevitable effect -- and the course of the river "DEVOLVES" back to its sluggish, meandering state.
If you're claiming that a meandering river is somehow less ordered than a straight one--a claim I'm not sure is justified--then at least you're acknowledging that natural processes can result in a temporary local decrease in entropy, 2nd Law notwithstanding.
Those who tout the theory of (unobserved) "upward evolution" very conveniently ignore the more powerful (observable) opposing effects of Entropy (aka "devolution or downward evolution").
We're not saying it's permanent and eternal. But "temporary and local" can mean "for millions of years on our planet."
Well and truly said, dear brother in Christ!
Thank you for sharing your credentials, dear brother in Christ! It’ll help anyone reading along to understand that your comments are informed by a life in physical science.
...and with somewhat of an educated understanding of the biological side of things as well -- which was the point of that particular comment...
Any simple life form is obviously far more complicated than a book. For the analogy to be more realistic though the DNA would be similar to CAD software in a CPU which is connected to a 3D printer that is physically creating other components (AKA proteins). The 'proteins' would create more CPUs with software and 3D printers to replicate ‘itself’ – also knowing when to turn parts of the program on and off to create all the components in the proper sequence. Oh, and they would also be self sustaining - able to generate their own power. For a new form of life to be created, an error in the CAD software or a 3D printer error would need to happen that did not adversely affect the sequence and outcome. Quite a feat for sheer dumb luck and a series of errors to pull off…
To be more precise, a simple prokaryote has hundreds of complex proteins including those needed for; DNA replication, transcription and translation, and all metabolic actions. If a typical protein is 300 amino acids long, you would be looking at coding 900 bits of information to simply specify its sequence for a ribosome assembly task. Multiply by hundreds - to thousands - to millions in order to see the awesome amount of information required to sustain this part of life. Even the simplest form of life according to neo-darwinism, the last universal common ancestor (LUCA), suggests that about half protein super-families (about 1000 out of 2000) were already present. This is just part of the hurdles for origin of life (OOL) research to overcome.
Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex single-celled organism would require between 318 and 562 kilobase pairs of DNA to produce the proteins necessary to maintain life (Koonin 2000). More complex single cells might require upward of a million base pairs. Yet to build the proteins necessary to sustain a complex arthropod such as a trilobite would require orders of magnitude more coding instructions. The genome size of a modern arthropod, the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, is approximately 180 million base pairs (Gerhart & Kirschner 1997:121, Adams et al. 2000).
- . Steven Meyers
Indeed, I should have said that. Thank you for the clarification!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
