DNA Information Evolution and ID

[SailingCyclops]

In a Random Ramblings discussion dadman asserted:

.. since all code derives from an intelligent source . . .
[...]
I do believe the subject is not so much evolution . . . but intelligence . . .
do you know anything about this "evolution coder/de-coder" ??

ref:This post

The assertion is made that since DNA is a code, there must be a coder. Presumably, some intelligent entity.

Questions for debate:

Is the coding, and information transfer we observe in DNA a product of evolution by natural selection? Or does DNA information and it's transfer demand an intelligence?

Does all code derive from an intelligent source?

Bob

[Starboard Tack]

Biosystems
Volume 90, Issue 1, July-August 2007, Pages 28-39

Monte Carlo simulation of early molecular evolution in the RNAWorld
Wentao et al

Abstract
The origin of life remains a highly speculative field, mainly due to the shortage of our knowledge on prebiotic chemistry and basic understanding on the essence of life. In this context, computer simulation is expected to play an important role. For instance, the scenario concerning the genesis of the widely accepted RNAWorld remains blurry, though we have gathered some circumstantial evidence and fragmented knowledge on several supposed stages, including formation of polynucleotides from a prebiotic nucleotide pool, emergence of RNA replicases (RNA molecules catalyzing their own replication), and evolution of RNA replicases. It is highly valuable to simulate the stages as a continuous process to evaluate the plausibility of the supposition and study the rules involved. Here we construct a computer simulation on the process using Monte Carlo method. It demonstrates that primordial RNA replicases may appear and spread in a nucleotide pool provided they could recognize their own sequence and their complements as catalytic targets, and then may evolve to more efficient RNA replicases. Apart from its indication on the genesis of the RNAWorld, the vivid simulation of emergence of the first replicative molecules and their subsequent evolution is impressive and may help to get insight into how could self-replication and Darwinian evolution, two key features of life, emerge in a non-life background? thus improve our understanding of what is life when studying origins of life.

Bioorganic Chemistry
Volume 35, Issue 6, December 2007, Pages 430-443

The origin of the RNAworld: Co-evolution of genes and metabolism
Copleya et al

Abstract
Discoveries demonstrating that RNA can serve genetic, catalytic, structural, and regulatory roles have provided strong support for the existence of an RNAWorld that preceded the origin of life as we know it. Despite the appeal of this idea, it has been difficult to explain how macromolecular RNAs emerged from small molecules available on the early Earth. We propose here a mechanism by which mutual catalysis in a pre-biotic network initiated a progression of stages characterized by ever larger and more effective catalysts supporting a proto-metabolic network, and the emergence of RNA as the dominant macromolecule due to its ability to both catalyze chemical reactions and to be copied in a template-directed manner. This model suggests that many features of modern life, including the biosynthetic pathways leading to simple metabolites, the structures of organic and metal ion cofactors, homochirality, and template-directed replication of nucleic acids, arose long before the RNAWorld and were retained as pre-biotic systems became more sophisticated.

Gene
Volume 389, Issue 1, 1 March 2007, Pages 10-18

Catalytic activity of hammerhead ribozymes in a clay mineral environment: Implications for the RNAworld
Biondia et al.

Abstract
The hypothesized RNA-based world would have required the presence of a protected environment in which RNA, or an RNA-like molecule, could originate and express its biological activity.

Recent studies have indicated that RNA molecules adsorbed/bound on clay minerals are able to persist in the presence of degrading agents, to interact with surrounding molecules, and to transmit the information contained in their nucleotide sequences.

In this study, we assessed the ability of RNA molecules with catalytic activity to perform a specific reaction in a mineral environment. For this purpose, we investigated the self-cleavage reaction of the hammerhead ribozyme of the Avocado Sun Blotch Viroid (ASBVd), both in the monomeric and in dimeric forms. The monomeric transcript was tightly bound on the clay mineral montmorillonite to form a stable complex, while the behaviour of the dimeric transcript was studied in the presence of the clay particles in the reaction mixture.

The results indicated that the hammerhead ribozyme was still active when the monomeric transcript was adsorbed on the clay surface, even though its efficiency was reduced to about 20% of that in solution. Moreover, the self-cleavage of clay-adsorbed molecule was significantly enhanced ( four times) by the presence of the 5 reaction product.

The self-cleavage reaction of the dimeric transcript in the presence of montmorillonite indicated that the mineral particles protected the RNA molecules against aspecific degradation and increased the rate of cleavage kinetics by about one order of magnitude.

These findings corroborate the hypothesis that clay-rich environments would have been a good habitat in which RNA or RNA-like molecules could originate, accumulate and undergo Darwinian evolutionary processes, leading to the first living cells on Earth.

Proof of concept experiments continue and will continue to yield valuable insights, although those insights are now understood to have little relevance to early earth chemistry and hence the origin of life. That is the sense I meant when I said this research is at a dead end, a.k.a. deader than Elvis.

For example, the last paper you reference discusses the fact that you can catalyze polymers on sterilized clays sourced probably from Wyoming, which is the only kind of clay that seems to work, probably being washed regularly with distilled water, all producing polymers that are too short to have biologic relevance. If the polymers get longer, they stick to the clay and won't come off. All interesting science, and all pretty hard to extrapolate to an environment where sterile and purified clay, distilled water and intelligent scientists to monitor the process were available. That's why they mention the "protected environment" in the abstract. I guess they are making the case for intelligent design, which is pretty much what William Schopf said when presented with similar experimental results.

[nygreenguy]

Proof of concept experiments continue and will continue to yield valuable insights, although those insights are now understood to have little relevance to early earth chemistry and hence the origin of life.

Yet people continue to do them and think they ARE relevant to early earth chemistry. How is it they think it is relevant, but you do not.

For example, the last paper you reference discusses the fact that you can catalyze polymers on sterilized clays sourced probably from Wyoming,

If clays were NOT sterilized then the experiment could be contaminated from other life forms. Sterilization would make the experiment similar to early earth conditions. As for wyoming, so what? Those clays were ubiquitous on early earth ocean floors.

which is the only kind of clay that seems to work, probably being washed regularly with distilled water, all producing polymers that are too short to have biologic relevance.

Lots of speculation. Did you read the paper? They demonstrate products being formed.

If the polymers get longer, they stick to the clay and won't come off.

ibid.

All interesting science, and all pretty hard to extrapolate to an environment where sterile and purified clay,

representing early earth.

distilled water and intelligent scientists to monitor the process were available.

Distilled? The whole process was done in solution with plenty of ions and other things present.

That's why they mention the "protected environment" in the abstract. I guess they are making the case for intelligent design, which is pretty much what William Schopf said when presented with similar experimental results.

When it comes to complex experiments like these you must first start off with as many variables controlled as possible, as we learn more, we build more of the variables into the experiments. You are essentially trying to create a scenario where it would be impossible for someone to ever prove this could have happened.

[Starboard Tack]

Proof of concept experiments continue and will continue to yield valuable insights, although those insights are now understood to have little relevance to early earth chemistry and hence the origin of life.

Yet people continue to do them and think they ARE relevant to early earth chemistry. How is it they think it is relevant, but you do not.

For example, the last paper you reference discusses the fact that you can catalyze polymers on sterilized clays sourced probably from Wyoming,

If clays were NOT sterilized then the experiment could be contaminated from other life forms. Sterilization would make the experiment similar to early earth conditions. As for wyoming, so what? Those clays were ubiquitous on early earth ocean floors.

which is the only kind of clay that seems to work, probably being washed regularly with distilled water, all producing polymers that are too short to have biologic relevance.

Lots of speculation. Did you read the paper? They demonstrate products being formed.

If the polymers get longer, they stick to the clay and won't come off.

ibid.

All interesting science, and all pretty hard to extrapolate to an environment where sterile and purified clay,

representing early earth.

distilled water and intelligent scientists to monitor the process were available.

Distilled? The whole process was done in solution with plenty of ions and other things present.

That's why they mention the "protected environment" in the abstract. I guess they are making the case for intelligent design, which is pretty much what William Schopf said when presented with similar experimental results.

When it comes to complex experiments like these you must first start off with as many variables controlled as possible, as we learn more, we build more of the variables into the experiments. You are essentially trying to create a scenario where it would be impossible for someone to ever prove this could have happened.

The purification I was referring to was chemical purification, which did not exist on the early earth. The clays used in all these experiements have no contaminants, organic or inorganic. Can you visualize a clay on the ocean floor that was not so contaminated? Besides, peptides cannot form in the ocean by the way, except with extreme difficulty because the process is thermodyanmically upside down. Polymers long enough to be of relevance to origins research have not been produced, and no one has a clue how to solve the chirality or homopolymer problem.

Another inconvenient observation:

RNA production on catalytic surfaces (montmorillonite clay) does not happen spontaneously without the use of activated RNA nucleotides (a synthetic, non-naturally occurring product - Formation of RNA Oligomers by Montmorillonite Catalysis: A Model Study. G. Ertem et al.

NY, we'll agree to disagree on this point, but I will make a small prediction which you can perhaps log in your memory and test for truth in the future. The RNA world hypothesis is going nowhere. When you are 60 years old, we will know no more about how life began than we do today. That is not because there is anything wrong with science or the scientific method, but because there is something wrong with strong methodological naturalism. A naturalistic source for life is not going to be found, nor coherently proposed, and continuing to insist that this is the only option will continue to stifle understanding.

Good luck in your studies and research! You sound like an outstanding scientist...

Perhaps I'll be wrong, but I would predict not. We'll see.

[Clownboat]

Proof of concept experiments continue and will continue to yield valuable insights, although those insights are now understood to have little relevance to early earth chemistry and hence the origin of life.

Yet people continue to do them and think they ARE relevant to early earth chemistry. How is it they think it is relevant, but you do not.

For example, the last paper you reference discusses the fact that you can catalyze polymers on sterilized clays sourced probably from Wyoming,

If clays were NOT sterilized then the experiment could be contaminated from other life forms. Sterilization would make the experiment similar to early earth conditions. As for wyoming, so what? Those clays were ubiquitous on early earth ocean floors.

which is the only kind of clay that seems to work, probably being washed regularly with distilled water, all producing polymers that are too short to have biologic relevance.

Lots of speculation. Did you read the paper? They demonstrate products being formed.

If the polymers get longer, they stick to the clay and won't come off.

ibid.

All interesting science, and all pretty hard to extrapolate to an environment where sterile and purified clay,

representing early earth.

distilled water and intelligent scientists to monitor the process were available.

Distilled? The whole process was done in solution with plenty of ions and other things present.

That's why they mention the "protected environment" in the abstract. I guess they are making the case for intelligent design, which is pretty much what William Schopf said when presented with similar experimental results.

When it comes to complex experiments like these you must first start off with as many variables controlled as possible, as we learn more, we build more of the variables into the experiments. You are essentially trying to create a scenario where it would be impossible for someone to ever prove this could have happened.

The purification I was referring to was chemical purification, which did not exist on the early earth. The clays used in all these experiements have no contaminants, organic or inorganic. Can you visualize a clay on the ocean floor that was not so contaminated? Besides, peptides cannot form in the ocean by the way, except with extreme difficulty because the process is thermodyanmically upside down. Polymers long enough to be of relevance to origins research have not been produced, and no one has a clue how to solve the chirality or homopolymer problem.

Another inconvenient observation:

RNA production on catalytic surfaces (montmorillonite clay) does not happen spontaneously without the use of activated RNA nucleotides (a synthetic, non-naturally occurring product - Formation of RNA Oligomers by Montmorillonite Catalysis: A Model Study. G. Ertem et al.

NY, we'll agree to disagree on this point, but I will make a small prediction which you can perhaps log in your memory and test for truth in the future. The RNA world hypothesis is going nowhere. When you are 60 years old, we will know no more about how life began than we do today. That is not because there is anything wrong with science or the scientific method, but because there is something wrong with strong methodological naturalism. A naturalistic source for life is not going to be found, nor coherently proposed, and continuing to insist that this is the only option will continue to stifle understanding.

Good luck in your studies and research! You sound like an outstanding scientist...

Perhaps I'll be wrong, but I would predict not. We'll see.

I would also like to predict that you are wrong. Now we just have to wait until nygreenguy is 60.

[Starboard Tack]

I would also like to predict that you are wrong. Now we just have to wait until nygreenguy is 60.

Could be. However, since 1950 when we thought that a cell was a blob of protoplasm easy to create with a little lightening and some inorganic pond scum to our understanding today that the simplest cell is a marvel of design and complexity whose origin we have no clue about, the trend line of understanding origins has decreased while our knowledge of the specific complexity of life has increased. Will this tide reverse itself and suddenly the pieces of the puzzle explaining how life began in a mud puddle on early earth fall into place? Perhaps, but based on past experience, I doubt it.

[Autodidact]

Let's assume, Starboard, that science does know how the first self-replicating organism came into existence. It's a mystery, a problem that science has not solved. O.K.? It does not follow that therefore your God magically poofed it into existence. What we have seen up till now, throughout history, is that it means that science needs to keep working on the problem until it figures it out.

What you are arguing is God of the Gaps. Not only is it wrong, it's bad theology. Because the more science advances, the more such a God retreats. So it puts you in a position to oppose and dispute the progress of scientific knowledge.

Much better, for a theist, to assume and have faith that God made all of it, the entire universe, set the galaxies spinning, and decreed that E should = m x c squared, and that a thing cannot be both true and false at the same time.

Then you don't have to go around trying to disprove whatever it is that science has just figured out. Because you have faith. You already know that God made it, and you can let science go about figuring out how.

[Starboard Tack]

Let's assume, Starboard, that science does know how the first self-replicating organism came into existence. It's a mystery, a problem that science has not solved. O.K.? It does not follow that therefore your God magically poofed it into existence. What we have seen up till now, throughout history, is that it means that science needs to keep working on the problem until it figures it out.

A couple of clarifying points. Either God exists or he does not. If he does, he is not "my God", but your God as well. You choose not to believe in him, which is certainly your right, but won't change the reality a whit.

Second, the possibility of God poofing life into existence through supernatural means is a proposition that entails predictions of what we would expect to find if it were true, just as a naturalistic explanation for life entails predictions. The supernatural explanation would expect that life could appear suddenly and complex. The naturalistic explanation would not. So far, the supernatural explanation conforms to what is observed, so while I agree with you that science should continue to work on the problem, science should also not exclude explanations just because they discomfit the metaphysics of some, like you. Best go where the evidence leads, don't you think, or are you one of those who believes that science should adhere to a philosophic orthodoxy where certain lines of evidence must not be explored?

What you are arguing is God of the Gaps. Not only is it wrong, it's bad theology. Because the more science advances, the more such a God retreats. So it puts you in a position to oppose and dispute the progress of scientific knowledge.

No, actually I am not. The God in the gaps argument is the insertion of God into shrinking gaps in our understanding. What you are doing is imposing science in widening gaps of understanding, essentially arguing science in the gaps. You won't be able to see that, of course, because of metaphysical constraints, but that is what is happening.

Much better, for a theist, to assume and have faith that God made all of it, the entire universe, set the galaxies spinning, and decreed that E should = m x c squared, and that a thing cannot be both true and false at the same time.

If God did make it, then there should be evidence that he made it. The evidence will be in the effects that one would expect if God was responsible. We measure the reality of many things in science by their effects, so why not God? The effects we would expect include the sudden appearance of complex life as discussed above. Another would be a universe minutely fine tuned for life, which is also what we observe. Another would be the existence of universal awareness of moral laws, which we also observe. Can I prove God scientifically? Of course not, but then again, scientists can't prove the existence of the multiverse, yet I applaud the exploration of this thesis.

Then you don't have to go around trying to disprove whatever it is that science has just figured out. Because you have faith. You already know that God made it, and you can let science go about figuring out how.

I am not interested in disproving anything that science has reasonably established as truth. What I am not particularly interested in is theological insistence that reality must be purely naturalisitic or theistic. I don't need to. The truth will out. You can stand the truth, can't you?

[nygreenguy]

lieve in him, which is certainly your right, but won't change the reality a whit.

Second, the possibility of God poofing life into existence through supernatural means is a proposition that entails predictions of what we would expect to find if it were true, just as a naturalistic explanation for life entails predictions.

And this has been one of my big problems with these claims. One can not POSSIBLY predict how a supernatural agent would work. It is impossible because we have zero knowledge on the subject.

It is like me going into a forest, seeing a fallen tree and claiming a Zanzabar knocked the tree down. How do I knows this creature did this? Its how they work. How do I know it is how they work? I dont.

People like to claim that we are created in gods image, therefore god would create stuff like we do and that has several problems.
1) Biology is nothing like human engineering.
2) If we are constricted under the same physical laws (humans and biology) then should "similar function" have "similar design"
3) God created everything out of nothing. EVERYTHING. This cant even be comprehended, let alone explained. So if god was capable of that, it is awfully hubristic to claim to know how he would create ANYTHING and ESPECIALLY to compare it to our design. Look at things engineered 100-200 years ago. Heck, some things just 10 years ago look crude and primitive. Imagine what our designs would look like to god. We are like bacteria in the soil.

So there is no way to predict how god would create anything making any prediction impossible.

No, actually I am not. The God in the gaps argument is the insertion of God into shrinking gaps in our understanding. What you are doing is imposing science in widening gaps of understanding, essentially arguing science in the gaps. You won't be able to see that, of course, because of metaphysical constraints, but that is what is happening.

This is like how every time a transitional fossil is found, it creates to more gaps in the fossil record. Even though we gained more information, the creationist says we lost some.

If God did make it, then there should be evidence that he made it. The evidence will be in the effects that one would expect if God was responsible. We measure the reality of many things in science by their effects, so why not God?

Because it is unknown.

The effects we would expect include the sudden appearance of complex life as discussed above.

why couldnt aliens seed life?

Another would be a universe minutely fine tuned for life, which is also what we observe.

Why is this a necessary characteristic of god?

Another would be the existence of universal awareness of moral laws, which we also observe.

Evolution has explained this.

[Autodidact]

Let's assume, Starboard, that science does know how the first self-replicating organism came into existence. It's a mystery, a problem that science has not solved. O.K.? It does not follow that therefore your God magically poofed it into existence. What we have seen up till now, throughout history, is that it means that science needs to keep working on the problem until it figures it out.

A couple of clarifying points. Either God exists or he does not. If he does, he is not "my God", but your God as well. You choose not to believe in him, which is certainly your right, but won't change the reality a whit.

By "your God," I only mean the God that you believe exists.

Second, the possibility of God poofing life into existence through supernatural means is a proposition that entails predictions of what we would expect to find if it were true, just as a naturalistic explanation for life entails predictions.

This is not correct. An all-powerful and unknowable God could do this any way He liked, and in a way that we could not understand or detect. If He wanted to, He could even do so in such a way as to appear to have come about in another way.

The supernatural explanation would expect that life could appear suddenly and complex.

No, not necessarily. God could have preferred to develop it slowly and gradually.

The naturalistic explanation would not. So far, the supernatural explanation conforms to what is observed, so while I agree with you that science should continue to work on the problem, science should also not exclude explanations just because they discomfit the metaphysics of some, like you. Best go where the evidence leads, don't you think, or are you one of those who believes that science should adhere to a philosophic orthodoxy where certain lines of evidence must not be explored?

Science must exclude supernatural explanations, because, by their very nature, they are not susceptible to scientific discovery.

I will just not, however, that science has a history of finding explanations that work, despite this "limitation." I predict that science will continue to do so, in this case and many others.

What you are arguing is God of the Gaps. Not only is it wrong, it's bad theology. Because the more science advances, the more such a God retreats. So it puts you in a position to oppose and dispute the progress of scientific knowledge.

No, actually I am not. The God in the gaps argument is the insertion of God into shrinking gaps in our understanding.

And that is exactly what you are doing. You have found a problem that science has not YET solved, and so you attribute the answer to God-magic.

What you are doing is imposing science in widening gaps of understanding, essentially arguing science in the gaps. You won't be able to see that, of course, because of metaphysical constraints, but that is what is happening.

Exactly. And history shows us that science does a good job of eliminating those gaps. Science can study anything in the natural world. That is its job.

Much better, for a theist, to assume and have faith that God made all of it, the entire universe, set the galaxies spinning, and decreed that E should = m x c squared, and that a thing cannot be both true and false at the same time.

If God did make it, then there should be evidence that he made it.

A truly faithful theist would know that God made it, find the evidence in the thing itself, and not exhibit doubt by searching for scientific support. If God made it, He made the very laws that make science possible. A faithful theist would believe that and proceed on that basis.

The evidence will be in the effects that one would expect if God was responsible. We measure the reality of many things in science by their effects, so why not God?

Because God, by His very nature, is a mystery that people cannot grasp.

The effects we would expect include the sudden appearance of complex life as discussed above.

No, you cannot make any prediction from the hypothesis that God did it. God could create life suddenly, or gradually, or any other way He would like.

Another would be a universe minutely fine tuned for life, which is also what we observe.

This is an interesting subject, but outside the scope of this discussion. I would suggest a separate thread.

Another would be the existence of universal awareness of moral laws, which we also observe.

Again, this is something that science can explain. After all, we're all the same species, and so very much alike. But this too is a subject for a separate thread.

Can I prove God scientifically? Of course not, but then again, scientists can't prove the existence of the multiverse, yet I applaud the exploration of this thesis.

Don't forget, science doesn't prove things; it's all about evidence.

Then you don't have to go around trying to disprove whatever it is that science has just figured out. Because you have faith. You already know that God made it, and you can let science go about figuring out how.

I am not interested in disproving anything that science has reasonably established as truth. What I am not particularly interested in is theological insistence that reality must be purely naturalisitic or theistic. I don't need to. The truth will out. You can stand the truth, can't you?

Yes, you are. Science has established how we get the variety of species on earth, and why they are so well-adapted to their environments. You are trying to disprove this well-established, foundational theory, about the validity of which there is no controversy within the field of Biology.

What you are disputing is philosophy, not science.

[Starboard Tack]

[quote="Starboard Tack

And this has been one of my big problems with these claims. One can not POSSIBLY predict how a supernatural agent would work. It is impossible because we have zero knowledge on the subject.

It is like me going into a forest, seeing a fallen tree and claiming a Zanzabar knocked the tree down. How do I knows this creature did this? Its how they work. How do I know it is how they work? I dont.

If the Zanzabar's modality of action were thoroughly documented in ancient writings purported to be the word of the Zanzabar, you might. What God did is pretty well described in Scripture and maps quite nicely to what is observed. The universe came to be, suddenly. Looks like it did. Life appeared suddenly. Looks like it did. Homo sapiens sapiens appeared very late in the game with quantifiably different attributes than had ever existed before. Looks like we did. A purely naturalisitic explanation has a hard time explaining why there is anything rather than nothing, much less accounting for the universe, the sudden appearance of life from inanimate chemicals about as soon as it could possibly exist, or us.

People like to claim that we are created in gods image, therefore god would create stuff like we do and that has several problems.
1) Biology is nothing like human engineering.

Quite the contrary. The more we learn about the machinery of the cell, the more analogs we see to human engineering and human inventions. Examples: Brownian rachets, flagellum, redundant systems, biologic information storage.

2) If we are constricted under the same physical laws (humans and biology) then should "similar function" have "similar design"

That's a bit like asking that since Michaelangelo created the Pieta that he can only sculpt. What we would see in both a naturalistic and theistic model for creation is the repeated use of the same approaches. What we would not expect in a naturalistic model is widespread convergent evolution, which we do see.

3) God created everything out of nothing. EVERYTHING. This cant even be comprehended, let alone explained. So if god was capable of that, it is awfully hubristic to claim to know how he would create ANYTHING and ESPECIALLY to compare it to our design. Look at things engineered 100-200 years ago. Heck, some things just 10 years ago look crude and primitive. Imagine what our designs would look like to god. We are like bacteria in the soil. So there is no way to predict how god would create anything making any prediction impossible.

It is certainly true that we cannot know how God brought what is into existence, but it's not all mystery. It is pretty well explained in the Bible. I realize that such statements are disallowed, but when I read God admonish Job in Job 38 "...where is the place of darkness, that you may take it to its territory and that you may discern the paths to its home?" I have a hard time not thinking that this passage says that darkness is an entity different from light (written at a time when darkness was defined as simply the absence of light), and that 'darkness' has a location, (the reference seems to be about dark matter and energy, and these entities do have a spatial location.) Again, the Bible is not a science text book, but if it is the word of God, then it should not state things about the world that are clearly false. Does the above passage refer to dark energy and dark matter? Who knows. What is clear is that the passage is supportive of what we know of these entities, writtten a few thousand years before the invention of the telescope. Was Paul referring to the second law of thermodynamics in Romans 8:21 when he states that the physical world is in "bondage to corruption" since its beginning? Beats me, but the passage is not inconsistent with that interpretation.

So, no, we can't know for sure how God brought everything into being, but it's not like he didn't leave us any clues...

If God did make it, then there should be evidence that he made it. The evidence will be in the effects that one would expect if God was responsible. We measure the reality of many things in science by their effects, so why not God?

Because it is unknown.

On that basis, we should stop trying to understand dark energy, since it can only be detected by its effects.

The effects we would expect include the sudden appearance of complex life as discussed above.

why couldnt aliens seed life?

The only reasons I can think of is because no technological civilization is likely to have arisen prior to ours (the weak anthropic principle); there are real limits to how far you can travel in space and at what speed (we surveyed all galaxies for signs of life within 250 light years and no trace has been found), but other than that, sure aliens could have seeded life. And the origin of their life is???

Another would be a universe minutely fine tuned for life, which is also what we observe.

Why is this a necessary characteristic of god?

Based on what we read of God's character in the Bible, he sure seems to like creating stuff, especially life. But aside from that, from a naturalistic perspective, the existence of anything is a mystery, but the existence of a universe fine tuned for life strongly suggests that whatever brought it into existence, wanted life to flourish on at least one planet.

Another would be the existence of universal awareness of moral laws, which we also observe.

Evolution has explained this.

Just like the Hari Krishna chant. Keep saying it over and over and over and one day, maybe it will become true.