Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life

Abstract

Where and how did the complex genetic instruction set programmed into DNA come into existence? The genetic set may have arisen elsewhere and was transported to the Earth. If not, it arose on the Earth, and became the genetic code in a previous lifeless, physical-chemical world. Even if RNA or DNA were inserted into a lifeless world, they would not contain any genetic instructions unless each nucleotide selection in the sequence was programmed for function. Even then, a predetermined communication system would have had to be in place for any message to be understood at the destination. Transcription and translation would not necessarily have been needed in an RNA world. Ribozymes could have accomplished some of the simpler functions of current protein enzymes. Templating of single RNA strands followed by retemplating back to a sense strand could have occurred. But this process does not explain the derivation of "sense" in any strand. "Sense" means algorithmic function achieved through sequences of certain decision-node switch-settings. These particular primary structures determine secondary and tertiary structures. Each sequence determines minimum-free-energy folding propensities, binding site specificity, and function. Minimal metabolism would be needed for cells to be capable of growth and division. All known metabolism is cybernetic--that is, it is programmatically and algorithmically organized and controlled.

Objects and processes: Two notions for understanding biological information

“…This would permit an analysis of certain characteristic traits of symbols, such as arbitrariness, which can't be captured by a mechanistic causal explanation; it would not only justify the commonplace use of informational terms, but it would give a way to relate diverse elements of biological systems that is not restricted to mere physicochemical causation. Trevors and Abel (2004) make a similar point when discussing the origins of biological information systems, saying that the dichotomic view of life as the product of either chance or necessity is insufficient to account for the emergence of the genetic coding system. In any case, these discussions mean that information terminology would rely on a set of theories that are complementary, rather than antagonistic, to other approaches.…”

The Genetic Code via Godel Encoding

“…Recently in 2004, [10], Trevors and Abel wrote a paper entitled "Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life" and, as the first sentence in their conclusion, they say that "New approaches to investigating the origin of the genetic code are required.". Some ten years ago Di Giulio already expressed "a certain lack of clarity in this field of research" [11].…”

“…Some ten years ago Di Giulio already expressed "a certain lack of clarity in this field of research" [11]. The above authors evoque and discuss the many seminal attempts throughout the world, since the latter forty years, of leading scientists as Crick, Jukes, Woese, Wong, Yarus, Freeland, Di Giulio, Guimaraes, Schimmel, Ribas de Pouplana, shCherbak and many others to understand the genetic code origin (all their names and the complete references could be found in [10]). Trevors and Abel express however a lack of full satisfaction and leave the door open to other new approaches and ideas.…”

Information and entropy — top-down or bottom-up development in living systems?

“…all of these functioning parts are needed to make the basic forms of living cells to work. These arguments are well rehearsed elsewhere by Trevors and abel [66] but are formidable and essentially unanswered. This, it may be argued, is a repeat of the irreducible complexity argument of behe [67], and many think that that debate has been settled by the work of Pallen and matzke [68] where an attempt to explain the origin of the bacterial flagellum rotary motor as a development of the Type 3 secretory system has been made.…”