A Design Process
by BradfordSuzan Mazur's interview of Chris McKay bears the descriptive title NASA Humanist Chris McKay: Where Darwinism Fails. McKay is a scientist at the NASA Ames Research Center where he researches the evolution of the solar system as well as the origin of life. From the linked article:
Suzan Mazur: What about other mechanisms of evolution, self-organization and self-assembly? They precede natural selection?
Chris McKay: Something had to precede Darwinian natural selection. The Darwinian paradigm breaks down in two obvious ways.
First, and most clear, Darwinian selection cannot be responsible for the origin of life. Secondly, there is some thought that Darwinian selection cannot fully explain the rise of complexity at the molecular level.
Suzan Mazur: So you're saying Darwinian natural selection sets in at what point?
Chris McKay: I think it must set in after life has started. After there's a genome, genotype. That's the one obvious place where Darwinian natural selection fails – is in the origin of life. It can't be Darwinian all the way down.
I agree that Darwinian selection did not give rise to the origin of life. An appreciation of the significance of this also makes it apparent that an ID perspective is not hiding out in gaps of knowledge. Gaps in knowledge exist within evolutionary eras as well but they are of a different nature. A search for knowledge can proceed within a theoretical framework providing an organizing structure. Not so with life's origin. Research in that field is like groping in the dark in search of adaquate theoretical supporting pillars. Not only are questions open, they are not fixed within overarching guideposts.
Suzan Mazur: At what point did the gene set in?
Chris McKay: We don't know. That's the question. It's got to do with whether the transition to life is abrupt or gradual.
There's another bombshell. Evolution is a process of gradual, accumulating incremental changes. McKay holds out the possibility of an abrupt transition from non-life to life. The term abrupt does not yield to exacting time specifications but that only adds to the wild west feeling of the field.
Suzan Mazur: What is the gene?
Chris McKay: The gene in a general sense is anything that stores information in an algorithmic way. Stores instructions how to build something. It doesn't have to be DNA, it could be RNA or it could be something else. But at some point life invented software.
I think the language of computers is very useful here. There's a distinction between hardware and software. Darwinian selection only works when there's software. And everything that's prebiotic is hardware.
Well put Chris McKay!
At some point life got onto software And that's when Darwinian selection could begin. Darwinian selection can't work on hardware by definition because Darwinian selection involves inheritable traits. Only a system that has software has inheritable, mutatable traits. It doesn't have to be DNA, but it has to be software. And it has to record algorithmic information, instructions.
Instructions are intrinsically telic and an abrupt arising of an algorithmic information system is an indicator of a design process- front loading what subsequently took place.
September 18th, 2008 at 7:21 am
It is good to know you have realised this, because this seems to be something a lot of creationists/IDists get confused about. Darwinian evolution only kicks in once life has appeared, and there is some process of inheritance.
This is something a lot of creationists/IDists get confused about. Darwinian evolution only kicks in once life has appeared, and there is some process of inheritance. You really need to realise this.
Comment by The Pixie Again — September 18, 2008 @ 7:21 am
September 18th, 2008 at 8:01 am
It's all a bit confusing without a definition of what life is. Let's assume for the moment that life (whatever it is) evolved from a self-replicating RNA molecule. Let's also say that what qualifies as life originated somewhere between the origin of that molecule and one of the first cells. In that case there must have been (by continuity) Darwinian selection before the origin of life, since selection can clearly operate on self-replicating molecules.
Comment by Raevmo — September 18, 2008 @ 8:01 am
September 18th, 2008 at 8:59 am
There's another bombshell. Evolution is a process of gradual, accumulating incremental changes. McKay holds out the possibility of an abrupt transition from non-life to life.
and Raevmo in a separate comment:
Pixie, I realize that "evolution only kicks in once life has appeared, and there is some process of inheritance" but as Raevmo points out that begs the question of what constitutes life.
Raevmo, to state there must have been selection before the origin of life does nothing to elucidate why prebiotic chemical reactions are more aptly analyzed through a selection perspective. The reason we confidently are able to apply selection concepts to cells is because we actually observe selection dynamics. Secondly, we know why cells are uniquely equipped to behave as self-sustaining replicators. There is already hardware in place enabling metabolism and software to direct processes in response to environmental stimulii. By contrast the molecules you reference are merely part of the environment and unable to adapt to it.
Comment by Bradford — September 18, 2008 @ 8:59 am
September 18th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Bradford:
Of course a molecule has fewer options than a cell to adjust to changing circumstances. That's one of the reasons why we no longer see self-replicating molecules in the wild — they were outcompeted by cells. But molecules can adapt, as has been shown in the lab.
Comment by Raevmo — September 18, 2008 @ 9:20 am
September 18th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Bradford
Okay, then. Try this: Evolution only kicks in once there is some process of inheritance. That is essentially what McKay is saying. By the way, that does not rule out selection (different self-replcators competing for resources) and/or evolution (in the board sense of change over time) before that time, just Darwinian evolution (where selection is based on changes that are passed on).
Comment by The Pixie Again — September 18, 2008 @ 9:20 am
September 18th, 2008 at 10:42 am
By contrast the molecules you reference are merely part of the environment and unable to adapt to it.
Molecules interact and produce all varieties of results in accord with laws of thermodynamics. There is no need for homeostasis and hence no measure by which adaptation can be assessed. We don't see SRMs because conditions favorable to them are very limited.
Comment by Bradford — September 18, 2008 @ 10:42 am
September 18th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Pixie:
McKay is saying software is required for inheritance and natural selection does not explain software.
Comment by Bradford — September 18, 2008 @ 10:44 am
September 18th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Bradford:
If you have two species of SRMs and one replicates faster in environment X, then that species can be said to better adapted to X.
Exactly my point.
Comment by Raevmo — September 18, 2008 @ 11:10 am
September 18th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
"… something a lot of creationists/IDists get confused about. Darwinian evolution only kicks in once life has appeared…"–Pixie
It seems also that a lot of evolutionary biologists get confused about that. Or maybe they aren’t confused, but you are?
What conditions are required for natural selection? Does anyone know? No. Life is not one of the conditions.
There's another bombshell. Evolution is a process of gradual, accumulating incremental changes. McKay holds out the possibility of an abrupt transition from non-life to life.—Bradford
And still another bombshell! Evolution is a process of gradual, accumulating, incremental change, except in all cases where evolution is not a process of gradual, accumulating, incremental change. LOL
“By contrast the molecules you reference are merely part of the environment and unable to adapt to it.”
“But molecules can adapt, as has been shown in the lab.”
OK. Which is it 4sur, Bradford?
All over the world, every day, and all day long scientists are performing in vitro selection, amplification, and optimization (evolutionary) experiments on DNA, RNA, and proteins, not commonly understood to be alive. Contrary to what McKay says about any difficulties of detecting selection (adaptation) here on Earth. LOL
“Molecules interact and produce all varieties of results in accord with laws of thermodynamics. There is no need for homeostasis and hence no measure by which adaptation can be assessed. We don't see SRMs because conditions favorable to them are very limited.”
If there is no measure by which adaptation can be assessed, Bradford, then explain to me how you know that conditions favorable to SRM’s are very limited? You seem to be making the assessment you said couldn’t be assessed.
We do know of one place where conditions seem almost idelaized, Bradford. Inside living cells.
Comment by Rock — September 18, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
September 18th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Rock:
A pool of exclusively ‘right-handed’ ribose molecules is generated and separated from other sugars as a result of what selection principle? It retains stability long enough to come into the physical proximity of a variety of bases which in turn were generated as a consequence of what tenet of natural selection? A high concentration of phosphate is also conveniently at hand. More selection? Ribose then combines with bases and phosphate to produce D-ribonucleotides. Why? Natural selection? Why did natural selection lead to this?
Comment by Bradford — September 18, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
September 18th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Bradford
Exactly. Abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution are two separate processes. Abiogenesis builds the basics. Evolution only kicks in once there is some process of inheritance.
Rock
I was talking specifically about Darwinin evolution. Darwinian evolution requires inheritance.
When is that?
Comment by The Pixie Again — September 18, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
September 18th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Bradford:
Excellent. Now you are proposing mechanistic hypotheses. That's the way forward. I suggest you think for a while about your questions and give us your answers or best guesses when you feel you have made progress.
Comment by Raevmo — September 18, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
September 18th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Raevmo, based on the properties of the biomolecules referenced (and properties I did not mention) predicted outcomes based on "natural selection" would indicate that a self-replicating molecule would be a most unlikely outcome and that if one was the product of an unspecified reaction a continuous replicating chain would be likewise unlikely. IOW, a natural selection perspective would lead an objective observer to conclude that the anticipated SRM chain reaction would be selected against.
Comment by Bradford — September 18, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
September 18th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Bradford:
Back to earth, Bradford. Do you really expect that your simplistic verbal model will convince anyone (the "objective observer"), without more detailed calculations? I agree that the origin of the first SRM's is not easily explained by natural selection as far as I can see. Maybe trillions of more or less random RNA molecules were generated before an SRM was produced. Perhaps metabolic networks originated first. Who knows? But you shouldn't jump to conclusions based on toy models.
Comment by Raevmo — September 18, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
September 18th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Yeah that would be childish.
But when nature reveals the implausibility of contemplated pathways we ought to heed the message.
Comment by Bradford — September 18, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
September 19th, 2008 at 12:36 am
[...] Telic Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design. « A Design Process [...]
Pingback by Indicators of Design - Telic Thoughts — September 19, 2008 @ 12:36 am
September 19th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Bradford, are you trying to tell me that the answer to my question is contained in the answers to a series of related questions? Such as Why would a designer select D-ribose and not L-ribose, or L- & D-ribose?
I was going to echo Raevmo's suggestion, but I really expect no answer.
I was talking specifically about Darwinin evolution. Darwinian evolution requires inheritance.–Pixie
And I was talking specifically about Darwinian evolution, Pixie. Heredity is chemistry, Pixie. What did you think it was? Darwinian evolution is chemical evolution.
"When is that?"
When is what?
Comment by Rock — September 19, 2008 @ 11:29 am
September 19th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Rock:
Heredity is information Rock. Evolution is contingent on information and changes to it.
Comment by Bradford — September 19, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
September 19th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Oh! It's "information"!
Well, never mind then. Obviously I'm suffering from some sort of chemically induced delusion. (Something in my genes, no doubt. LOL)
Comment by Rock — September 19, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
September 19th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Test.
Checking to see if my posts show on the front page side-bar.
Comment by GringoRoyale — September 19, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
September 20th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
I found this comment by Chris McKay interesting.
What McKay means here by “second genesis” of life, is life that originates independently, not as a result of natural panspermia. He then makes the logical leap that life must be common in the universe. It may be a logical leap, but it is not a logical impossibility, as well as a scientifically worthwhile possibility.
Furthermore, I think the possibility that life is common in the universe has a number of other provocative implications:
First, it strongly suggests that there is some kind of higher teleological process is at work in the universe. It’s kind of hard to keep making “it’s just a lucky accident” argument over and over again if life is common.
Second, if life is common in the universe, we’ll have to reconsider the idea of common descent. What I mean is, if life is common, the origin life must also relatively easy. In other words, if you have the right conditions, on the right kind of planet, life will almost inevitably emerge. The origin of life appears to be difficult to us because we don’t yet have the understanding of what is required for life to emerge.
How would this change our thinking about common descent? It should be obvious. If life can be easily formed if the right conditions are present. And if those conditions were present on the early earth then it is logical possible that there was not one genesis of life on earth but perhaps a second, third or fourth etc. For example, plants and animals may have completely separate origins and therefore are not related by what is commonly called common descent.
It looks like another dogma of Neo-Darwinism is about to bite the dust.
Hopefully that doesn’t sound too triumphilistic to anyone out there.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 20, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
[...] Telic Thoughts discusses the Suzan Mazur article on Chris Mackay, NASA Humanist Chris McKay: Where Darwinism Fails [...]
Pingback by Darwiniana » TT on ‘Where Darwinism Fails’ — September 26, 2008 @ 7:50 pm