Psience Quest

(2017-12-04, 11:43 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]If you read further in he document you will find he makes a distinction between mind and "organic" as agents. What he means by organic and how it differs from mind I have not been able to fathom.


So, if I read him correctly, he seems to be saying that, as some might say that mind or consciousness is a fundamental, so too is organic information or meaning. I'd prefer to class them together as a single phenomenon.

Maybe the term "organic information" refers to MAL, the source of all? He doesn't use the word consciousness, but the "or meaning" bit sort of hints at a consciousness that isn't self-aware except in restricted ways through its alters. Are alters a means of its experiencing what we think of as the world in a self-aware manner?

I've been trying to find the post that mentioned instinct but have failed because this thread is so long -- was it posted by Kamarling? I can't remember -- apologies for that.

It's an interesting question, which I have been turning over. Are instincts coded for in DNA? Does a gene cause a newly-born lamb to quickly stand on its legs and seek out its mother's teat? What about DNA sequences in non-coding (so-called "junk") regions of chromosomes? Do they have something to do with behaviour?

I've been trying to find something useful on the web but so far haven't had much success. There's a tidbit here (under the heading "Instinctive Behaviour") where it's simply asserted that since instinctive behaviours are inherited, they must in some way be coded for in DNA, but doesn't seem to offer any evidence for that.

For example, are there any experiments where genes have been knocked out that result in the disappearance of instinctual behaviours? That resulted in, say, lambs that didn't stand up and seek out the teat as soon as they were born?

Trouble is, it's difficult to formulate that question in a pithy way that can be searched for on the Web. A search for "genes that specify instinct" led me to a video by Richard Dawkins:



-- It's another just-so story, with no real evidence for the Baldwin effect. Notice also how he rubbishes Lamarkism: maybe he's not aware of epigenetic discoveries or simply in denial about them? I don't know.

I wonder whether instinctive behaviours are actually inherited: they could be a property of the whole organism which every member of the species displays once it's been born. The whole idea of "inheritance" is predicated on extending the known principle of genes passing on the ability to execute molecule-level instructions in cells. That doesn't necessarily mean that they govern instinctive behaviours, though.

If anyone can find an experiment that knocks out genes and results in the disappearance of an instinctive behaviour, please link to it and I'll check it out.

(2017-12-05, 11:58 PM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]It is probably true that life did not start with a pure RNA world.

Work continues on RNA that can replicate other RNA and itself:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/10/...n-of-life/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...173205.htm

http://www.cell.com/cell-chemical-biolog...13)00426-2

Edited to add: Hang on a mo! That's the same Susan Mazur who made a huge crapfest out of the Altenberg conference.

~~ Paul

I'll stick with the expert comments on RNA world theories already posted. Mazur's book was published a while after the first two links that you posted were published, and long after the starting enzyme in the third linked paper was produced. The interviewees' opinions, unless you claim Mazur fabricated them, would have taken that research into account. The research needs to produce RNA molecules that can form spontaneously, store information and perform useful reactions, and reproduce themselves, all in a plausible prebiotic environment. It hasn't done it. 

The third paper involves a starting RNA enzyme that was originally produced in a laboratory using very artificial conditions and many artificial procedural steps including special screening (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3579227/). A little presumptuous to cite research that started with an enzyme produced with artificial carefully controlled laboratory conditions and procedures, hardly what would have applied on the early Earth.

(2017-12-06, 01:30 AM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]I suspect those quotes are taken out of context. I started looking up the names (excluding the physicist) and found that they weren't denying the role of RNA, but rather RNA-only. Deamer is keen on the role of membranes and lipid layers to isolate RNA and aid in polymerization. Williams talks about the co-evolution of ribosomes and proteins. Etc. 

It doesn't look like anything coming from "Evolution News" can be taken at face value, so far. 

Linda

The "RNA world" is a hypothetical stage in the evolutionary history of life on Earth, in which self-replicating RNA molecules proliferated before the evolution of DNA and proteins (Wiki). The RNA world hypothesis apparently speculates that RNA carried out the great majority of biochemical reactions before the evolution of complex protein enzymes, through the evolution of ribozymes - noncoding RNA that carry out various activities, especially self-replication and catalysis. This was the RNA world I referred to. Please cite how the quoted interview comments didn't refer to this definition of the "RNA World". The interview excerpts are clear, to the point, and valid expressions of the interviewees' opinions. Unless you claim Mazur fabricated them. 

As far as your opinion of Evolution News is concerned, this is a fine example of the hasty generalization fallacy (reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence),
the jumping to conclusions fallacy (the making of a determination without all of the information required to do so), all combined with the genetic fallacy. Please cite specific errors in the science.

(2017-12-06, 08:05 AM)Michael Larkin Wrote: [ -> ]I've been trying to find the post that mentioned instinct but have failed because this thread is so long -- was it posted by Kamarling? I can't remember -- apologies for that.

It's an interesting question, which I have been turning over. Are instincts coded for in DNA? Does a gene cause a newly-born lamb to quickly stand on its legs and seek out its mother's teat? What about DNA sequences in non-coding (so-called "junk") regions of chromosomes? Do they have something to do with behaviour?

Yes, it was a post of mine early in this thread ...

http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-da...08#pid6008

(2017-12-06, 09:33 AM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]The "RNA world" is a hypothetical stage in the evolutionary history of life on Earth, in which self-replicating RNA molecules proliferated before the evolution of DNA and proteins (Wiki). The RNA world hypothesis apparently speculates that RNA carried out the great majority of biochemical reactions before the evolution of complex protein enzymes, through the evolution of ribozymes - noncoding RNA that carry out various activities, especially self-replication and catalysis. This was the RNA world I referred to. Please cite how the quoted interview comments didn't refer to this definition of the "RNA World". The interview excerpts are clear, to the point, and valid expressions of the interviewees' opinions. Unless you claim Mazur fabricated them. 

As far as your opinion of Evolution News is concerned, this is a fine example of the jumping to conclusions fallacy (the making of a determination without all of the information required to do so) combined with the genetic fallacy. Please cite specific errors in the science.

None of those quotes support the idea that the RNA-world is an "utter disaster" or a "baseless fantasy", which was the claim made in the Evolution News article. The scientists are positing additional factors within that RNA-world, and/or a greater co-role to proteins, not that the idea becomes impossible without intelligence or needs to be scrapped altogether (the spin Evolution News puts on it).

Paul has offered links to primary sources for discussion. Why forego those in favour of what seems to be (so far) the highly biased perspective Evolution News offers, which misrepresents those sources? If we agree that there is something interesting to learn, it makes more sense to look at the most valid sources of information first.
 
Linda

nbtruthman Wrote:I'll stick with the expert comments on RNA world theories already posted. Mazur's book was published a while after the first two links that you posted were published, and long after the starting enzyme in the third linked paper was produced. The interviewees' opinions, unless you claim Mazur fabricated them, would have taken that research into account. The research needs to produce RNA molecules that can form spontaneously, store information and perform useful reactions, and reproduce themselves, all in a plausible prebiotic environment. It hasn't done it.

Not so far, no. However, I don't know why you think that all the interviewees would necessarily know the state of the art. Also, I'm betting some of the quotes are taken out of context, as fls shows. Mazur has an agenda, as was obvious with her coverage of the Altenberg conference.

Quote:The third paper involves a starting RNA enzyme that was originally produced in a laboratory using very artificial conditions and many artificial procedural steps including special screening (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3579227/). A little presumptuous to cite research that started with an enzyme produced with artificial carefully controlled laboratory conditions and procedures, hardly what would have applied on the early Earth.

That's simply one way to approach the problem. If you can produce enzymes that have the function you're looking for, that might help to discover natural ones with that function.

No one is claiming that the problem is solved. We may never be able to reproduce the origin of life exactly, since things ain't the same now.

~~ Paul

(2017-12-06, 09:33 AM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]The "RNA world" is a hypothetical stage in the evolutionary history of life on Earth, in which self-replicating RNA molecules proliferated before the evolution of DNA and proteins (Wiki). The RNA world hypothesis apparently speculates that RNA carried out the great majority of biochemical reactions before the evolution of complex protein enzymes, through the evolution of ribozymes - noncoding RNA that carry out various activities, especially self-replication and catalysis. This was the RNA world I referred to. 

At least there is an hypothesis, with plenty of detailed chemistry and some testable claims. For someone so fond of the Discovery Institute, you must find that refreshing.

Remind us again what their (or your) hypothesis is so we can compare them side by side.

(2017-12-06, 02:50 AM)Larry Wrote: [ -> ]I don't have the scientific background to contribute much to this discussion but for the very first time I find myself in agreement with steve001
The discovery site is embedded with a right wing American Christian political agenda. Maybe you would need to be from around here to get the smell but for me it reeks- which is to bad because I am on board with most of the science they present.

Well I think left and right in politics have become rather confused in recent years, but I'll tell you straight out, I would have voted Trump in the last election if I was American. I think Hillary might have started a war with Russia over Syria. In the past, the left were very much in favour of peace, but that doesn't seem to be true any more.

The people doing ID research, write books about the science, and debate about the science. Take Stephen Meyer, he only mentions Christianity in the epilogue of his book. I think the truth is that ID is relevant to ψ for exactly the same reason as it is relevant to Christianity - it shows that life can't have arisen and evolved on earth by purely physical processes.

I agree, many of the ID crowd assume that this 'proves' Christianity, but of course it doesn't, because there are so many other spiritual possibilities - the other world religions, shamanism, personal explorations of the other world via OBE's etc.

To the extent that the DI is against the teaching of evolution as the only possibility, I support the DI, but I wouldn't want kids to be taught hard line Christianity in schools either!

David

(2017-12-06, 12:39 AM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]Why? Remember that the third base is highly degenerate. Perhaps when it was added on it didn't do anything. Then as time went by it allowed additional amino acids to be incorporated.

~~ Paul

But surely it would do something - because for example
C A T T G G

would be read as CA TT GG by a 2-base reader

and as

CAT TGG by a 3-base reader

How can the organism's genome survive that change?

David