Slicing and Dicing Falk: Part Two
by BradfordStephen Meyer, author of Signature in the Cell wrote Response to Darrel Falk’s Review of Signature in the Cell. A prior post focused on the first few paragraphs. Continuing with the article:
Falk first cites a scientific study published last spring after my book was in press. The paper, authored by University of Manchester chemist John Sutherland and two colleagues, does partially address one of the many outstanding difficulties associated the RNA world, the most popular current theory about the origin of the first life.
Starting with a 3-carbon sugar (D-gylceraldehyde), and another molecule called 2-aminooxazole, Sutherland successfully synthesized a 5-carbon sugar in association with a base and a phosphate group. In other words, he produced a ribonucleotide. The scientific press justifiably heralded this as a breakthrough in pre-biotic chemistry because previously chemists had thought (as I noted in my book) that the conditions under which ribose and bases could be synthesized were starkly incompatible with each other.
Nevertheless, Sutherland’s work does not refute the central argument of my book, nor does it support the claim that it is premature to conclude that only intelligent agents have demonstrated the power to produce functionally-specified information. If anything, it illustrates the reverse.
Very true. Sutherland's work is causally inadequate as an explanatory model for the issues raised in Meyer's book.
In Chapter 14 of my book I describe and critique the RNA world scenario. There I describe five major problems associated with the theory. Sutherland’s work only partially addresses the first and least severe of these difficulties: the problem of generating the constituent building blocks or monomers in plausible pre-biotic conditions. It does not address the more severe problem of explaining how the bases in nucleic acids (either DNA or RNA) acquired their specific information-rich arrangements. In other words, Sutherland’s experiment helps explain the origin of the “letters” in the genetic text, but not their specific arrangement into functional “words” or “sentences.”
That's the core message. An explanation for sequential arrangements is not only lacking, it is not revealed by chemical based scenarios. Coding properties are not sourced from chemical determinism. Sequential arrangements are pegged to biological function. The arrangements themselves merely code for components enabling function. Not incorporating this into causal explanations says in effect: the basic property of DNA must be excluded from the explanation of its origin. If encoded nucleic acids precede function then an explanation, other than a functional one, must account for biologically relevant sequencing. This can lead to the treadmill effect we witness in origin of life research.
Back to Meyer's reaction to Sutherland:
First, Sutherland chose to begin his reaction with only the right-handed isomer of the 3-carbon sugars he needed to initiate his reaction sequence. Why? Because he knew that otherwise the likely result would have had little biologically-significance. Had Sutherland chosen to use a far more plausible racemic mixture of both right and left-handed sugar isomers, his reaction would have generated undesirable mixtures of stereoisomers—mixtures that would seriously complicate any subsequent biologically-relevant polymerization. Thus, he himself solved the so-called chirality problem in origin-of-life chemistry by intelligently selecting a single enantiomer, i.e., only the right-handed sugars that life itself requires. Yet there is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment.
Second, the reaction that Sutherland used to produce ribonucleotides involved numerous separate chemical steps. At each intermediate stage in his multi-step reaction sequence, Sutherland himself intervened to purify the chemical by-products of the previous step by removing undesirable side products. In so doing, he prevented—by his own will, intellect and experimental technique—the occurrence of interfering cross-reactions, the scourge of the pre-biotic chemist.
Third, in order to produce the desired chemical product—ribonucleotides—Sutherland followed a very precise “recipe” or procedure in which he carefully selected the reagents and choreographed the order in which they were introduced into the reaction series, just as he also selected which side products to be removed and when. Such recipes, and the actions of chemists who follow them, represent what the late Hungarian physical chemist Michael Polanyi called “profoundly informative intervention[s].” Information is being added to the chemical system as the result of the deliberative actions—the intelligent design—of the chemist himself.
In sum, not only did Sutherland’s experiment not address the more fundamental problem of getting the nucleotide bases to arrange themselves into functionally-specified sequences, the extent to which it did succeed in producing more life-friendly chemical constituents actually illustrates the indispensable role of intelligence in generating such chemistry.
January 31st, 2010 at 2:28 pm
O noes! Another instance of One, Instead of Zero?
Comment by olegt — January 31, 2010 @ 2:28 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Falk just came in with a response to Meyer. In addition, Matzke and I are having a tangle in the comments, plus MikeGene has made a few appearances.
Comment by johnnyb — January 31, 2010 @ 4:12 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Falk's response begins thus:
I love that. Falk captures the essence of creationism: it's unprofessional.
Comment by olegt — January 31, 2010 @ 4:32 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 10:58 pm
olegt -
Honestly? There are so many professions which need to interrelate, but you are saying that doing so is unprofessional? Do you think theologians need to take science into account, or is that just scientists being unprofessional? Why should mathematicians, computer scientists, philosophers, engineers, biologists, and others not all be working together towards a solution to our problems?
Comment by johnnyb — January 31, 2010 @ 10:58 pm
February 1st, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Just because he is unprofessional, does it mean he is directly wrong? This is not even argument, it is empty opinion. Furthermore, Meyer is far from unprofessional unlike olegt asserts, he has doctorate in philosophy of science in particular to historical science of Darwinian type, which gives him more than enough credence than many Darwinian cranks like you anyway.
Creationism? It is ID not creationism, name calling is perhaps evolutionist strongest and most rampant argument in all forums I have visited. And anyway there are more qualified biologist sith doctorate even in YEC or OEC community than what olegt thinks.
Comment by JoeNoelle — February 1, 2010 @ 9:27 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:53 am
Yes JoeNoelle, only crackpots conflate ID and Creation.
Comment by ID guy — February 2, 2010 @ 7:53 am
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:57 am
Impressive indeed!
ONE freakin' new protein binding site and evolutionists are all in a tither.
olegt's position must really suck if he needs to keep harping on one new protein binding site.
Also Sutherland et al, partially addresses the issue if and only if a chemist was present to get the RNA world started.
Comment by ID guy — February 2, 2010 @ 7:57 am
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Falk may not want to use this argument, lest it be used against his colleagues.
Signature of the Cell deals with often with the origin of life and the coding of the DNA. Consider a sampling of the backgrounds of some major names in the field.
Erwin Schrodinger (nobel laureate in physics), author of "What is Life" which inspired Watson-Crick
Harold Urey (nobel laureate in physics for discovery of deuterium): famous for Urey-Miller experiment
Harold Morowitz (physics and chemistry): OOL researcher for 50 years
Robert Hazen (geology, chemistry, physics): OOL researcher
Francis Collins (MD, Phd in quantum physics): Human genome project
1/3 of the MIT engineers are involved in biology
Falk is dead wrong to try to disqualify non-biologists from involvement with biology. The reasons biologists must rely on other disciplines is because biologists are often unqualified to research and evaluate and understand aspects of biological systems. This is not to say biologists are unskilled, but to point out, biological systems are too complex for one discipline to grasp. I liken the situation to any one discipline being pre-eminent in laying claim to understanding all the details of the space shuttle.
And if Falk wishes to glorify Darwinism, he might want to consider that Meyer has accumulated more formal training than Darwin.
For YEC creationism I would agree save for a few individuals (like John Sanford). There's more preaching and theology than science.
For ID, I would have to disagree. Although I wouldn't consider ID's depth of development on the order of a discipline like chemistry and physics, I would consider it a nice cross-disciplinary field which involves science, forensics, philosophy.
ID has been investigated by researchers in secular quarters and from reasonable educated individuals. Sternberg has a PhD in two biological disciplines, Don Johnson a PhD in chemistry and computer science, Gonzales is a published astronomer, Sanford an accomplished applied geneticist. Barrow is a respected astronomer and physicist, etc.
So I would agree YEC is not yet at the level of professional (save a few outstanding researchers). ID could be considered to have professional quality if we consider it a cross-disciplinary topic. If one wishes to call ID a philosophical discipline, then, in that sense it is a professional discipline.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 2, 2010 @ 5:03 pm