Replies

From your quote:

By contrast, DNA is a random string of atoms - the ‘aperiodic crystal famously predicted by Schrödinger (1944) - and so has high algorithmic information content; it is then hard to see how such an entity could be a product of law alone. In this respect it is worth noting that although the backbone structure of DNA is determined by the laws of physics and chemistry, the precise sequence of nucleotides the ‘letters of the genetic alphabet are not. There are no chemical bonds between successive nucleotides; chemistry is indifferent to the sequence chosen...

This gets me every time. Chemistry and, most certainly physical laws, are not indifferent to the sequence chosen.

The determinists are dependent on this fact. You might not be aware, and, apparently, Paul Davies is not aware that the DNA molecule interacts with a whole host of molecules in the environment, using laws of chemistry and physics. It's especially foolish to use this silly canard with respect to an argument about determinism. I'll boil down what his argument amounts to. Life is not dependent on universal laws because a particular reaction is not dependent on specific chemical bonds. He's making a gross generalization error based on anectdotal information.

Thank you so much for your post and analysis of that portion of the article!

I might have cut the article too short. Here are the paragraphs that followed the paragraph you quoted through the next excerpt at 4507:

Those like de Duve who espouse a less teleological and conspiratorial form of biological determinism argue that because the stuff of life is common in the universe, then so must life be. Oft-cited is the commonness of the life-giving elements C,H,N,O,P,S, and the ubiquity of simple organic building blocks like methane, formaldehyde, alcohol and even amino acids. These molecules are easy to make, and are found across the universe, in meteorites, comet tails and even interstellar clouds. Therefore, the argument goes, life should be common too.

This argument is, however, flawed. The building blocks of life are easy to make because their synthesis is thermodynamically favoured. But stringing them together in an aqueous environment into complex molecular chains like proteins and RNA is thermodynamically ‘uphill. Just as a pile of bricks alone don’t make a house, so organic building blocks alone don’t make life. Put a stick of dynamite under a pile of bricks, and you don’t make a house, you just make a mess. In the same way, merely throwing energy willy-nilly at a collection of amino acids, for example, to drive it against the thermodynamic gradient, won’t produce a protein. Just as a house requires the delicate assembly of bricks into an elaborate and specific arrangement, so amino acids need to be carefully linked in a precise way to make a functional protein, rather than gunk. The same goes for nucleic acids.

A hundred years ago, it was commonly supposed that life is some sort of magic matter, and that life’s origin would be analogous to baking a cake. All it needs is the right ingredients mixed in the right order under the right conditions. Today we know that the living cell is less magic matter, more a supercomputer; i.e. it is an information processing and replicating system. The key property that distinguishes life from other forms of complexity is the informational aspect, the message in the genes. Chemistry cannot explain information. Chemistry is the medium of life, but one must not confuse the medium with the message.

By contrast, DNA is a random string of atoms - the ‘aperiodic crystal famously predicted by Schrödinger (1944) - and so has high algorithmic information content; it is then hard to see how such an entity could be a product of law alone. In this respect it is worth noting that although the backbone structure of DNA is determined by the laws of physics and chemistry, the precise sequence of nucleotides the ‘letters of the genetic alphabet are not. There are no chemical bonds between successive nucleotides; chemistry is indifferent to the sequence chosen... -quoted by Alamo-Girl-

This gets me every time. Chemistry and, most certainly physical laws, are not indifferent to the sequence chosen.

Totally false. The power of DNA is that the different 'letters' can be arranged in any way possible. This is shown by a simple table of how the symbols in the DNA code are translated into amino acids. All 64 possible combinations have been found to be used in life.

Paul Davies is not aware that the DNA molecule interacts with a whole host of molecules in the environment, using laws of chemistry and physics.

I am sure he is quite aware of it. In fact that is what makes DNA so special - the code, to be useful and sustain life, has to be arranged in such a way as to provide for the functions needed for life. These functions have to be in accordance with the rest of reality and it has to take account of how this is to be accomplished. So you have it absolutely backwards - like most materialists and evolutionists. You are going from what exists and are saying that because something exists the means for its existance had to have arisen deterministically. This is totally false backwards. The effect is not the source of the cause. The determinists are dependent on this fact. You might not be aware, and, apparently, Paul Davies is not aware that the DNA molecule interacts with a whole host of molecules in the environment, using laws of chemistry and physics. It's especially foolish to use this silly canard with respect to an argument about determinism. I'll boil down what his argument amounts to. Life is not dependent on universal laws because a particular reaction is not dependent on specific chemical bonds. He's making a gross generalization error based on anectdotal information.