In my first post on Meyer’s Signature in the Cell I discussed information theory, and claimed that the cell exhibits functional information—information that cannot be explained in terms of the physical machinery of the cell. In this post I want to provide some background on the machinery and inner workings of the cell to provide evidence for the claim that the cell contains complex specified information (functional information), and explain why biologists have come to recognize that DNA stores and transmits “genetic information,” contains a “genetic blueprint” with “assembly instructions,” and expresses a “digital code.”
The two most basic components of the cell are DNA and proteins. DNA is made up of a 4 character chemical alphabet: adenine, thymine, guanine, cytosine (these are called nucleotides). These nucleotides always appear in complimentary pairs: adenine is paired with thymine, and guanine is paired with cytosine.
Proteins—the workhorses of the cell—are composed of amino acids. The cell contains 20 different kinds of amino acids. To create functional proteins, these amino acids must be sequenced together in a specific order, forming a “chain” of amino acids (proteins come in varying lengths, with shorter proteins consisting of ~100 amino acids, most proteins consisting of several hundred, and some as large as 34,350 [titin]). While there are a number of ways in which amino acids can be sequenced, the vast majority of combinations are functionless. They sequence must be specified if the protein is to have function (functionality also requires the protein to be folded into a particular shape).
In 1958 Francis Crick proposed that there exists a relationship between DNA and proteins: DNA builds proteins. Crick suggested that the sequence of nucleotide bases along the spine of the DNA molecule determines the arrangement of amino acids in proteins. But how does a 4 character genetic alphabet determine the sequence of a 20 character alphabet? Crick said it must utilize a digital code to translate one biological “language” into another. He postulated the existence of several biological entities he thought would be necessary to explain how genetic information could be converted into proteins, all without any observational evidence. Within five years, not only was Crick’s theory of a digital code within the cell proven correct, but the biological entities he postulated were discovered as well. What exactly did biologists discover?
The process of protein production involves unwinding and transcribing a portion of the DNA molecule. RNA polymerase is responsible for unwinding the section of DNA that needs to be copied, and then carrying out the transcription process. RNA polymerase attaches itself to the binding site of the gene—a site that specifies where the gene begins. This is necessary to prevent RNA polymerase from beginning its transcription in the middle or end of the gene, and thus missing important genetic information. Then, the RNA polymerase directs and positions RNA nucleotides present in the cell’s nucleus to pair with their complimentary partner on the DNA template. As the RNA nucleotides pair with the DNA nucleotides, the RNA polymerase binds the RNA nucleotides together to form a long chain called Messenger RNA (mRNA). The finished product is a strand of mRNA that is the exact compliment of the DNA.
mRNA is then is transported outside the cell nucleus to the ribosome to undergo translation to create a protein. Since mRNA copies sections of DNA that code for proteins as well as sections that don’t (introns), however, the mRNA must be edited prior to its arrival at the ribosome. Enzymes in the cell carry out the editing process by splicing the mRNA, cutting out the non-coding regions, and then reassemble the coding regions in their proper order. Once editing is complete, mRNA enters the ribosome.
Once docked inside the ribosome, transfer RNA (tRNA) shows up to carry out the process of translating the mRNA sequence to create a protein. tRNA molecules are short strings of (ribo)nucleotides[1] looped together to form a cross-like shape. On one end of the cross there is a sequence of three ribonucleotides (called an anti-codon) that allows tRNA to bind to mRNA, and on the other end is an amino acid. There are many different types of tRNA molecules (31-61 depending on the cell), each of which carries a single, specific amino acid.[2] tRNA molecules can be thought of as the personal chauffeurs and matchmakers of amino acids, transporting them to the ribosome and linking them together with other amino acids to form proteins.
Once a tRNA molecule is found whose anti-codon corresponds to the first three nucleotides (called a codon) in the mRNA sequence, it attaches itself to the beginning of the mRNA molecule (the mRNA codon pairs with the tRNA anti-codon). This is followed by the arrival of a second tRNA molecule. It attaches itself to the next triplet of mRNA nucleotide sequences. Once attached, the amino acid it carries will bond to the first amino acid,[3] linking them together like box cars of a train. Once bonded, the tRNA molecule drops off, leaving its amino acid behind. This is followed by the arrival of yet another tRNA, and the process continues until the entire strand of mRNA is translated by tRNA, producing a chain of amino acids (protein). If you are not a biologist, this process may be hard to imagine. A wonderful video animation of the process can be viewed at www.signatureinthecell.com (lower right corner).
This simplified version of protein production presents us with a window into the complexity of the cell. Life requires a great number of interacting and matching parts, as well as biological information:
- Phosphate, ribose, oxygen, hydrogen, and nucleotide bases to form DNA
- A complex and specified arrangement of nucleotides to form biological information
- RNA polymerase to unwind and transcribe that genetic information into mRNA
- A transport system to move mRNA from the nucleus to the ribosome
- Enzymes to edit the mRNA
- Ribosomes to synthesize proteins
- 20 different amino acids to construct proteins
- At least 20 different kinds of tRNA to translate DNA into proteins
- 20 aminoacyl-tRNA syntheases to bind amino acids to tRNA
- Peptidyl transferase to bind the amino acids together in the ribosome
It also presents us with a chicken-and-egg dilemma. As Jacque Monod wrote in 1971, “The [DNA] code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell’s translating machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated otherwise than by the products of translation”[4] (note, we now know that more than 100 proteins are required). David Goodsell wrote that this “is one of the unanswered riddles of biochemistry: which came first, proteins or protein synthesis? If proteins are needed to make proteins, how did the whole thing get started?”[5]
Biologists and origin of life scientists, then, must explain at least four things: (1) the origin of the system for storing and encoding digital information; (2) the origin of the digital information itself; (3) the origin of the components necessary for unwinding, transcribing, editing, transporting, and translating the information; (4) the origin of the functional interdependence of the various parts required for processing this information.
How is the origin of these things to be explained? Before we evaluate various proposals, we need to take a look at how scientists who study the past go about their work; specifically, the method by which they determine what it was in the past that caused the effects we observe in the present.
[1]Between 73-93, although I’ve read 74-94 as well.
[2]An enzyme called “aminoacyl-tRNA syntheases” is responsible for attaching amino acids to tRNA molecules. There are 20 different enzymes, one for each of the twenty different kinds of amino acids.
[3]A protein in the ribosome called peptidyl transferase is responsible for binding the amino acids together.
[4]Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity, 143 in Meyer, 133-4.
[5]David Goodsell, The Machinery of Life, 45 in Meyer, 134.
December 8, 2009 at 8:02 pm
To paraphrase how a philosophy professor that I know summarized the modern scientific worldview in an e-mail to me just this morning: Everything happens for a reason, but nothing happens for a purpose. It is a subtle yet crucial distinction. But is it possible to be rational–directed at truth as the goal–without being intentional? Irreducible teleology may be an even stronger argument against naturalism/materialism than irreducible complexity.
LikeLike
December 9, 2009 at 12:03 pm
There must be something that is uncaused that became the first cause.
LikeLike
December 12, 2009 at 4:56 pm
[…] you haven’t already done so, read parts 1 and 2 of this series as well. [1] Greg Koukl, Solid Ground, July/Augusts 2005 issue, page […]
LikeLike
January 25, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Hi!I think this blog is good!I found it on Google,I will surely come back! 😀
LikeLike
February 5, 2010 at 1:24 pm
[…] for design from his new book, Signature in the Cell. Past posts can be found here: Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and […]
LikeLike
February 23, 2010 at 11:40 am
[…] 1). This post will conclude my review/summary of Meyer’s book. Links to the entire series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, […]
LikeLike
April 7, 2010 at 9:11 am
[…] theories and powerful argument for the intelligent design of the first life (parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7a, 7b). But what about the proliferation of life? Can a fully naturalistic theory […]
LikeLike
September 30, 2010 at 1:26 pm
“[3]A protein in the ribosome called peptidyl transferase is responsible for binding the amino acids together.”
You do realize that this statement from Meyer’s book is objectively, utterly false, don’t you?
And that this conceals the strongest evidence supporting the RNA World hypothesis from Meyer’s readers?
LikeLike
October 4, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Without having his book in front of me, I cannot go back to confirm that I accurately conveyed what he said. Assuming I did, what is false about that statement?
Jason
LikeLike
October 4, 2010 at 6:15 pm
jasondulle wrote:
“Without having his book in front of me, I cannot go back to confirm that I accurately conveyed what he said.”
You were accurate.
“…what is false about that statement?”
The first ten words of it are, IMO, a lie designed to deceive you about the important fact that the ribozyme at the center of translation was never replaced by protein, which, as you’ll recall, Meyer describes as an inferior catalyst. Now why would God use an inferior catalyst? Clearly Meyer can’t explain it, so he turns to deceit. It’s clear why evolution couldn’t replace it.
He can even deceive his readers about something so important and fundamental that it won a Nobel Prize.
LikeLike
October 5, 2010 at 11:03 am
John, I’ll take your word for it that I got Meyer right. I have one comment, and one question. First, for the comment. Assuming Meyer got it wrong, is it really appropriate to speak of him “lying” and “deceiving”? I get a bit bothered when people illegitimately and prematurely try to assess their intellectual opponents’ motives. Just because someone disagrees with you, or even makes a factual error, does not mean it was done with malicious intent. I’m not tracking with you on the biology, so if you could flesh out the story a little more I would really appreciate it. As for the question, are you saying that what Meyer wrote reflects the work of some scientist who won a Nobel Prize for his work? If so, then it would seem that the problem is not with Meyer per se, but with the larger scientific community. Apparently Meyer is not the only one making this claim, even if his claim is wrong (which I have no idea at this point). Jason
LikeLike
October 5, 2010 at 12:05 pm
“Assuming Meyer got it wrong, is it really appropriate to speak of him “lying” and “deceiving”?”
Jason,
Yes. I properly qualified it as my opinion, and I would never do so without additional evidence.
“I get a bit bothered when people illegitimately and prematurely try to assess their intellectual opponents’ motives.”
I do too. Again, I have additional evidence.
“Just because someone disagrees with you, or even makes a factual error, does not mean it was done with malicious intent.”
1) If someone does not respond to questions, that suggests an intent to deceive.
2) If someone makes such a spectacularly false statement in an arena in which he claims expertise, that suggests an intent to deceive.
3) If the truth is completely inconsistent with the message someone is trying to convey, that suggests an intent to deceive.
“I’m not tracking with you on the biology, so if you could flesh out the story a little more I would really appreciate it.”
If you’re not tracking the biology, that indicates that Meyer’s deception was successful. What’s to flesh out? Meyer says that the enzyme at the heart of protein synthesis is a protein. It’s not; it’s an RNA, which evolution could build around but never actually replace.
“As for the question, are you saying that what Meyer wrote reflects the work of some scientist who won a Nobel Prize for his work?”
No, you’re not even close. What Meyer wrote reflects the flat DENIAL of work that won a Nobel Prize. It won a Nobel Prize largely because it so beautifully supports the RNA World hypothesis. There’s no possible way that an informed, honest, earnest expert in OOL theory, whether he accepts it or not, could write what Meyer wrote.
“If so, then it would seem that the problem is not with Meyer per se, but with the larger scientific community. Apparently Meyer is not the only one making this claim, even if his claim is wrong (which I have no idea at this point).”
It’s not so. How can you have no idea when I plainly told you what is false about the statement, Jason? Are you really that resistant to questioning Meyer, who’s never done a bit of science in his life?
Here’s another point: the two next most important discoveries about ribozymes that work in modern cells are conveniently omitted by Meyer.
LikeLike
October 5, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Regarding my comment about tracking with the biology, it only indicates that my knowledge of biology is minimal. It says nothing about Meyer.
You wrote, “It’s not so. How can you have no idea when I plainly told you what is false about the statement, Jason? Are you really that resistant to questioning Meyer, who’s never done a bit of science in his life?” But you said this in response to comments I made which assumed a positive answer to my question, “Are you saying that what Meyer wrote reflects the work of some scientist who won a Nobel Prize for his work?” Given the fact that the answer was negative, my comments were not applicable. Be that as it may, I wish to point out that this has nothing to do with being resistant to questioning Meyer. I am not defending Meyer. I don’t know enough about the biology to defend him or agree with you, which is why I was asking you for more details. You’ve provided some raw facts, but there’s no story to go along with it. Given what you’ve told me thus far, I don’t really know what to do with your comments. Nor do I see how it undermines Meyer’s case.
And what are the two other discoveries you speak of? Jason
LikeLike
October 5, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Jason, you wrote:
“Regarding my comment about tracking with the biology, it only indicates that my knowledge of biology is minimal. It says nothing about Meyer.”
You’ve read and endorsed his book, but your knowledge of biology is minimal. That speaks volumes about Meyer!
“But you said this in response to comments I made which assumed a positive answer to my question, “Are you saying that what Meyer wrote reflects the work of some scientist who won a Nobel Prize for his work?” Given the fact that the answer was negative, my comments were not applicable.”
Ah, I see what you mean now.
“Be that as it may, I wish to point out that this has nothing to do with being resistant to questioning Meyer. I am not defending Meyer. I don’t know enough about the biology to defend him or agree with you, which is why I was asking you for more details.”
But your strategy says that your goal is to defend Meyer. If you are a seeker of truth, I claim that Meyer is being dishonest, and you have stated that you don’t trust my judgment, you would, at a minimum, not ask ME for more details–you would seek information from any source BUT me.
How hard is it to go to nobelprize.org, or to google
“peptidyl transferase” “Nobel Prize” ribozyme
before responding? It seems to me that your goal is to get me to state the details so that you can discount them using the genetic fallacy. If you learned them from a reputable source it would be much harder for you to deny their importance and Meyer’s dishonesty in withholding them from you.
“You’ve provided some raw facts, but there’s no story to go along with it.”
And Meyer omitted these facts because they don’t fit his story, to which you seem to be attached.
Now, why would God build the catalytic center of the ribosome and protein synthesis from RNA, which is an inferior catalyst according to Meyer (see p. 304)? Those are the data that an ID hypothesis has to fit. MET is just fine with it—evolution can change all the scaffolding around the peptidyl transferase active site, but couldn’t replace it.
“Given what you’ve told me thus far, I don’t really know what to do with your comments.”
But given what you could have learned for yourself with no trouble at all, you really would!
“Nor do I see how it undermines Meyer’s case.”
Then explain the intelligent design of the ribosome. Or better yet, learn the stuff he’s decided you can’t handle. He omitted important data for a reason.
“And what are the two other discoveries you speak of?”
Again, one is so famous that it also won a Nobel Prize because of its relevance to cancer and the RNA World hypothesis, but Meyer omits it (IMO because he can’t explain it).
Before I tell you, let’s look at how Meyer describes the catalytic abilities of RNA on p. 304 of the book, OK? I want to get a less-varnished view of what you take from it.
LikeLike
October 5, 2010 at 3:56 pm
I see you did a whole post of regurgitation of Meyer’s (mostly subtle) misrepresentations of the RNA World hypothesis.
Let’s start with this:
“This model was largely fueled by the discovery of Thomas Cech and Sidney Altman in the early 1980s that sometimes RNA can catalyze chemical reactions like an enzyme does, and thus RNA could serve the dual purpose of information storage (like DNA) and enzymatic functions (like proteins).”
What does “can” mean in this context, Jason? Was this designed in a lab?
LikeLike
October 5, 2010 at 4:07 pm
You wrote, “You’ve read and endorsed his book, but your knowledge of biology is minimal. That speaks volumes about Meyer!” How so? His book was written for a popular, lay audience. I am part of that audience. All this speaks about Meyer is his ability to reach his targeted audience. I haven’t said I don’t trust your judgment, but why should I? I know who Meyer is, and I know his educational background. That gives me reason to trust what he says about a topic that he has a Ph.D. in (at least until I have reason to think otherwise). I don’t know who you are, or your background. You are just a commenter on a blog. I shouldn’t trust you until you can establish yourself as an authority on these matters, or point me to those who are, and who provide evidence that Meyer is wrong. I am not averse to thinking Meyer is wrong on some biological point, but I would be an idiot to just take your word for it.
As for who I should ask details of, of course it would be you. You are the one who raised the issue, and you present yourself as someone who is in the know. I am asking you to share what you know. That doesn’t mean I won’t attempt to validate what you claim, but it does mean I want to hear it from you first. I don’t have time to embark on a research project every time some commenter makes a claim or raises a dispute. You wrote, “It seems to me that your goal is to get me to state the details so that you can discount them using the genetic fallacy. If you learned them from a reputable source it would be much harder for you to deny their importance and Meyer’s dishonesty in withholding them from you.” It seems to me you like to divine people’s intentions without knowing much about them. This is just silliness. I am asking for details so I can properly assess what you are claiming, and it’s import to the topic at hand. Do you always imagine the worst of people with whom you disagree?
Jason
LikeLike
October 5, 2010 at 4:08 pm
John,
Was what designed in a lab? RNA?
Do you really need to know the definition of “can”?
Jason
LikeLike
October 5, 2010 at 4:46 pm
“Do you really need to know the definition of “can”?”
No, Jason, I simply want to know why you think Meyer used the term “can” instead of “does.”
Just as in the following case, I want to know why you think Meyer used the term “substitute:”
“3. Ribozymes are poor substitutes for proteins”
Doesn’t this also mean that they are poor alternatives for proteins in designs?
LikeLike
October 5, 2010 at 5:06 pm
“I know who Meyer is, and I know his educational background.”
Why would his education be more relevant than his accomplishments in science, of which there are exactly zero?
“That gives me reason to trust what he says about a topic that he has a Ph.D. in (at least until I have reason to think otherwise).”
Then there’s no excuse for his not knowing the nature of peptidyl transferase, is there?
“You are the one who raised the issue, and you present yourself as someone who is in the know.”
Whether I am in the know is not the issue. The issue is whether or not YOU WANT to know the truth about simple, important facts that are not subject to interpretation.
“I am asking you to share what you know.”
But I already did! I know that peptidyl transferase is a ribozyme, and that this is a Very Big Deal—something that any competent, honest person would deal with in discussing the RNA World hypothesis, whether he accepts it or not.
“That doesn’t mean I won’t attempt to validate what you claim, but it does mean I want to hear it from you first.”
But you haven’t bothered to validate what I’ve already claimed, Jason! You’re desperately searching for a way to support Meyer before you can bring yourself to check up on him. You need to know what I know so that you can whip up a handwaving defense.
“It seems to me you like to divine people’s intentions without knowing much about them.”
No, I am testing a hypothesis—that you don’t really wanna know the truth—empirically.
“This is just silliness.”
It’s science, which you apparently think someone who’s never done any understands better than Nobel Laurates.
“I am asking for details so I can properly assess what you are claiming, and it’s import to the topic at hand.”
You don’t need any more details to properly assess whether peptidyl transferase is a ribozyme or a protein, and you’ll get them if you take the brave step of searching for the real truth instead of depending on appeals to unqualified authorities who are deliberately deceiving you, but telling you just what you want to hear.
My hypothesis is that you’re afraid to. That hypothesis makes clear, empirical predictions of your behavior when you are challenged.
Now, why would God build the catalytic center of the ribosome and protein synthesis from RNA, which is an inferior catalyst according to Meyer (see p. 304)?
LikeLike
October 5, 2010 at 5:23 pm
In your other post, you wrote:
“Thinking a cell can function using only ribozymes is like thinking a carpenter can build a house using only a hammer.[11]”
Jason, from where did you get the silly idea that the RNA World is necessarily hypothesized to have existed after cellularization?
LikeLike
October 7, 2010 at 10:38 am
John,
I am not a biologist, and as I already said, my knowledge of biology is minimal. So asking me biological questions will get you and me nowhere. Neither can I tell you why Meyer chose one word over another. I am not Meyer.
You asked why Meyer’s education would be more relevant than his accomplishments in science. Because one does not need to be a practicing scientist or have scientific accomplishments in order to understand science. One only needs to be well-read and up-to-date with the research. And given the fact that Meyer’s PhD is in the history of OOL research, I have no reason to think he is ignorant of biology or what’s going on in the field of OOL. That is his specialty! Now, does that mean Meyer can’t make a mistake? No. You are claiming he did (with malicious intent to boot). I am asking for evidence of this. I find it ironic that you simply refuse to quote sources, etc.
You said I haven’t validated what you have claimed to-date, but how could I? I didn’t even understand what you were talking about! Like I said, I am not a biologist. I asked for further information because it wasn’t clear to me what your point was. Thankfully, more of the story is emerging now. But you still haven’t spelled out the import of all of this. I must say, you’re not a very good story teller. You like to speak in snippets instead of explaining yourself. It makes it difficult to communicate with you.
As for your continued claims about my desire or lack thereof to know the truth, etc., this is just nonsense. You don’t know me from Adam. It is annoying, and I wish you would stop it. Just stick to the facts. You’re not Freud.
Finally, I fail to see how any of this undermines Meyer’s argument for design. It seems to me like you are haggling over a minor point and ignoring the big picture. There is good experimental reason, and good statistical reason to believe that functional RNA/DNA/proteins cannot arise by chance, and there is no chemical reason to believe they arise by physical necessity. Furthermore, the presence of a code is undeniable. These facts point to design, regardless of whether PT is a ribozyme, protein, or something else. So while I am interested in knowing the proper classification of cellular entities and how that might affect certain theories about the OOL, I don’t see how the point you raise changes the game.
Jason
LikeLike
April 23, 2014 at 9:46 am
[…] good example of this is the origin of life (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). We have plenty of knowledge about how life works, the minimum requirements […]
LikeLike
July 18, 2020 at 4:52 am
[…] https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/signature-in-the-cell-part-2-inner-workings-of-the-cel… […]
LikeLike