OoL – out at first base?

[MarkE]

We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.

Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.

Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.

But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?

A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.

What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?

Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

[erik simpson]

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

The LUCA (last universal common ancestor) lived about 200 My after the
formation of the moon. There's a very outside chance it lived of Mars.
That would make the proximity of the moon's formation a little easier,
but surviving the launch from Mars and months-long trip to earth isn't
very likely.

The first life probably in something like a "deep smoker" with lots clay
available. Clay is a fine surface to catalize organic compounds.

[MarkE]

Post by erik simpson

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world,
and other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply
of these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous
base, sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much
more time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of
self-synthesising nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million
years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because
any developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically
has vanishingly small probability.

The LUCA (last universal common ancestor) lived about 200 My after the
formation of the moon.  There's a very outside chance it lived of Mars.
That would make the proximity of the moon's formation a little easier,
but surviving the launch from Mars and months-long trip to earth isn't
very likely.
The first life probably in something like a "deep smoker" with lots clay
available.  Clay is a fine surface to catalize organic compounds.

This makes the problem of time worse. If the first protocell capable of
self-synthesising nucleotides developed this way, you need a "deep
smoker" (or localised group) operating steadily for millions of years.

Also, you no longer have wetting and drying cycles, which seem
indispensable to support concentration of reactants, polymerisation, etc.

[erik simpson]

Post by MarkE

Post by erik simpson

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world,
and other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the
supply of these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous
base, sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building
blocks. You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient
concentration, purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location,
etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much
more time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of
self-synthesising nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million
years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because
any developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically
has vanishingly small probability.

The LUCA (last universal common ancestor) lived about 200 My after the
formation of the moon.  There's a very outside chance it lived of
Mars. That would make the proximity of the moon's formation a little
easier, but surviving the launch from Mars and months-long trip to
earth isn't very likely.
The first life probably in something like a "deep smoker" with lots
clay available.  Clay is a fine surface to catalize organic compounds.

This makes the problem of time worse. If the first protocell capable of
self-synthesising nucleotides developed this way, you need a "deep
smoker" (or localised group) operating steadily for millions of years.
Also, you no longer have wetting and drying cycles, which seem
indispensable to support concentration of reactants, polymerisation, etc.

No you don't. The generation time for microbes in on the order of hours.
Self-catalyzing time for a strand of RNA is probably on the order of
minutes. A black smoker need only be present for few years, and the
early earth had a much hotter interior means that there were at least
millions of them. As SJ Gould remarked "life may be as common as
quartz". Indeed. All you need is hot water and a thermal or chemical
gradient and you're good to go.

[MarkE]

Post by erik simpson

Post by MarkE

Post by erik simpson

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world,
and other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the
supply of these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous
base, sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building
blocks. You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient
concentration, purity, chirality, activation, distribution,
location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much
more time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of
self-synthesising nucleotides? One million years? One hundred
million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because
any developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically
has vanishingly small probability.

The LUCA (last universal common ancestor) lived about 200 My after
the formation of the moon.  There's a very outside chance it lived of
Mars. That would make the proximity of the moon's formation a little
easier, but surviving the launch from Mars and months-long trip to
earth isn't very likely.
The first life probably in something like a "deep smoker" with lots
clay available.  Clay is a fine surface to catalize organic compounds.

This makes the problem of time worse. If the first protocell capable
of self-synthesising nucleotides developed this way, you need a "deep
smoker" (or localised group) operating steadily for millions of years.
Also, you no longer have wetting and drying cycles, which seem
indispensable to support concentration of reactants, polymerisation, etc.

No you don't. The generation time for microbes in on the order of hours.
 Self-catalyzing time for a strand of RNA is probably on the order of
minutes.  A black smoker need only be present for few years, and the
early earth had a much hotter interior means that there were at least
millions of them.  As SJ Gould remarked "life may be as common as
quartz". Indeed.  All you need is hot water and a thermal or chemical
gradient and you're good to go.

"All you need is hot water and a thermal or chemical gradient and you're
good to go."

We have a very different understanding of what is involved in the
formation of life. I'm with these leading OoL researchers (Damer and
Deamer):

“[OoL research has] been mainly focused on individual solution chemistry
experiments where they want to show polymerization over here, or they
want to show metabolism over here, and Dave and I believe that it's time
for the field to go from incremental progress to substantial progress.
So, these are the four points we've come up with to make substantial
progress in the origin of life, and the first one is to employ something
called system chemistry, having sufficient complexity so instead of one
experiment say about proteins, now you have an experiment about the
encapsulation of proteins for example, and informational molecules built
from nucleotides in an environment that would say be like an analog of
the early Earth, build a complex experiment. Something we're calling
sufficient complexity, and all of these experiments have to move the
reactions away from equilibrium. And what do we mean by that? Well, in
in your high school chemistry experiments, something starts foaming
something changes color and then the experiment winds down and stops.
Well, life didn't get started that way. Life got started by a continuous
run-up of complexity and building upon in a sense nature as a ratchet.
So we have to figure out how to build experiments that move will move
away from equilibrium...”

“You can't sit in a laboratory just using glassware. You have to go to
the field. You have to go to hot springs, you have to go to […] Iceland
and come check and sit down and see what the natural environment is
like, rather than being in the ethereal world of pure reactants and
things like that...”

Source: A new model for the origin of life: A new model for the origin
of life: Coupled phases and combinatorial selection in fluctuating
hydrothermal pools.

[erik simpson]

Post by MarkE

Post by erik simpson

Post by MarkE

Post by erik simpson

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA
world, and other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of
the supply of these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous
base, sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building
blocks. You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient
concentration, purity, chirality, activation, distribution,
location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much
more time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of
self-synthesising nucleotides? One million years? One hundred
million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because
any developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell
naturalistically has vanishingly small probability.

The LUCA (last universal common ancestor) lived about 200 My after
the formation of the moon.  There's a very outside chance it lived
of Mars. That would make the proximity of the moon's formation a
little easier, but surviving the launch from Mars and months-long
trip to earth isn't very likely.
The first life probably in something like a "deep smoker" with lots
clay available.  Clay is a fine surface to catalize organic compounds.

This makes the problem of time worse. If the first protocell capable
of self-synthesising nucleotides developed this way, you need a "deep
smoker" (or localised group) operating steadily for millions of years.
Also, you no longer have wetting and drying cycles, which seem
indispensable to support concentration of reactants, polymerisation, etc.

No you don't. The generation time for microbes in on the order of
hours.   Self-catalyzing time for a strand of RNA is probably on the
order of minutes.  A black smoker need only be present for few years,
and the early earth had a much hotter interior means that there were
at least millions of them.  As SJ Gould remarked "life may be as
common as quartz". Indeed.  All you need is hot water and a thermal or
chemical gradient and you're good to go.

"All you need is hot water and a thermal or chemical gradient and you're
good to go."
We have a very different understanding of what is involved in the
formation of life. I'm with these leading OoL researchers (Damer and
“[OoL research has] been mainly focused on individual solution chemistry
experiments where they want to show polymerization over here, or they
want to show metabolism over here, and Dave and I believe that it's time
for the field to go from incremental progress to substantial progress.
So, these are the four points we've come up with to make substantial
progress in the origin of life, and the first one is to employ something
called system chemistry, having sufficient complexity so instead of one
experiment say about proteins, now you have an experiment about the
encapsulation of proteins for example, and informational molecules built
from nucleotides in an environment that would say be like an analog of
the early Earth, build a complex experiment. Something we're calling
sufficient complexity, and all of these experiments have to move the
reactions away from equilibrium. And what do we mean by that? Well, in
in your high school chemistry experiments, something starts foaming
something changes color and then the experiment winds down and stops.
Well, life didn't get started that way. Life got started by a continuous
run-up of complexity and building upon in a sense nature as a ratchet.
So we have to figure out how to build experiments that move will move
away from equilibrium...”
“You can't sit in a laboratory just using glassware. You have to go to
the field. You have to go to hot springs, you have to go to […] Iceland
and come check and sit down and see what the natural environment is
like, rather than being in the ethereal world of pure reactants and
things like that...”
Source: A new model for the origin of life: A new model for the origin
of life: Coupled phases and combinatorial selection in fluctuating
hydrothermal pools. http://youtu.be/nk_R55O24t4

I did leave out an important point. The self-relicating organism must
be present along with the mentiontioned gradients. Sorry to have
created confusion.

[jillery]

Post by MarkE

Post by erik simpson

Post by MarkE

Post by erik simpson

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world,
and other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the
supply of these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous
base, sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building
blocks. You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient
concentration, purity, chirality, activation, distribution,
location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much
more time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of
self-synthesising nucleotides? One million years? One hundred
million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because
any developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically
has vanishingly small probability.

The LUCA (last universal common ancestor) lived about 200 My after
the formation of the moon.  There's a very outside chance it lived of
Mars. That would make the proximity of the moon's formation a little
easier, but surviving the launch from Mars and months-long trip to
earth isn't very likely.
The first life probably in something like a "deep smoker" with lots
clay available.  Clay is a fine surface to catalize organic compounds.

This makes the problem of time worse. If the first protocell capable
of self-synthesising nucleotides developed this way, you need a "deep
smoker" (or localised group) operating steadily for millions of years.
Also, you no longer have wetting and drying cycles, which seem
indispensable to support concentration of reactants, polymerisation, etc.

No you don't. The generation time for microbes in on the order of hours.
 Self-catalyzing time for a strand of RNA is probably on the order of
minutes.  A black smoker need only be present for few years, and the
early earth had a much hotter interior means that there were at least
millions of them.  As SJ Gould remarked "life may be as common as
quartz". Indeed.  All you need is hot water and a thermal or chemical
gradient and you're good to go.

"All you need is hot water and a thermal or chemical gradient and you're
good to go."
We have a very different understanding of what is involved in the
formation of life. I'm with these leading OoL researchers (Damer and
“[OoL research has] been mainly focused on individual solution chemistry
experiments where they want to show polymerization over here, or they
want to show metabolism over here, and Dave and I believe that it's time
for the field to go from incremental progress to substantial progress.
So, these are the four points we've come up with to make substantial
progress in the origin of life, and the first one is to employ something
called system chemistry, having sufficient complexity so instead of one
experiment say about proteins, now you have an experiment about the
encapsulation of proteins for example, and informational molecules built
from nucleotides in an environment that would say be like an analog of
the early Earth, build a complex experiment. Something we're calling
sufficient complexity, and all of these experiments have to move the
reactions away from equilibrium. And what do we mean by that? Well, in
in your high school chemistry experiments, something starts foaming
something changes color and then the experiment winds down and stops.
Well, life didn't get started that way. Life got started by a continuous
run-up of complexity and building upon in a sense nature as a ratchet.
So we have to figure out how to build experiments that move will move
away from equilibrium...”
“You can't sit in a laboratory just using glassware. You have to go to
the field. You have to go to hot springs, you have to go to […] Iceland
and come check and sit down and see what the natural environment is
like, rather than being in the ethereal world of pure reactants and
things like that...”
Source: A new model for the origin of life: A new model for the origin
of life: Coupled phases and combinatorial selection in fluctuating
hydrothermal pools. http://youtu.be/nk_R55O24t4

I agree with Deamer and Damer quoted above. Do they agree with your
statement below?

"Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically
has vanishingly small probability."

[MarkE]

As SJ Gould remarked "life may be as common as quartz".

Gould's sound bite is revealing. Quartz is formed through a relatively
simple, demonstrable process.

In contrast, "Understanding the origin of life (OoL) is one of the major
unsolved scientific problems of the century."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7151616/

It seems Gould is conflating life's abundance and resilience on Earth
with the ease or otherwise that life may arise naturalistically.

[erik simpson]

Post by MarkE

As SJ Gould remarked "life may be as common as quartz".

Gould's sound bite is revealing. Quartz is formed through a relatively
simple, demonstrable process.
In contrast, "Understanding the origin of life (OoL) is one of the major
unsolved scientific problems of the century."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7151616/
It seems Gould is conflating life's abundance and resilience on Earth
with the ease or otherwise that life may arise naturalistically.

It's certainly harder (take longer), but the commonality ay be comparable.

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:57:43 -0800, erik simpson
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip for focus]

Post by erik simpson
Self-catalyzing time for a strand of RNA is probably on the order of
minutes. A black smoker need only be present for few years, and the
early earth had a much hotter interior means that there were at least
millions of them. As SJ Gould remarked "life may be as common as
quartz". Indeed. All you need is hot water and a thermal or chemical
gradient and you're good to go.

If that is the case, why have we not seen any new life forms develop
from scratch in the last several billion years with every form of life
we know descending from a single origin?

I know the typical response is that in the early earth, there were
possibly numerous life forms with one dominant one devouring the
others but that seems a bit of a stretch; it doesn't explain why there
is no trace of anything developing in later stages and no one has ever
been able to create laboratory conditions that have allowed new life
to develop. Miller-Urey got as far as amino acids but that is a long
way from a life form.

Just to be clear, I am not endorsing MarkE's arguments; I'm simply
challenging the Gould statement and the "all you need" comment.

[erik simpson]

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:57:43 -0800, erik simpson
[snip for focus]

Post by erik simpson
Self-catalyzing time for a strand of RNA is probably on the order of
minutes. A black smoker need only be present for few years, and the
early earth had a much hotter interior means that there were at least
millions of them. As SJ Gould remarked "life may be as common as
quartz". Indeed. All you need is hot water and a thermal or chemical
gradient and you're good to go.

If that is the case, why have we not seen any new life forms develop
from scratch in the last several billion years with every form of life
we know descending from a single origin?
I know the typical response is that in the early earth, there were
possibly numerous life forms with one dominant one devouring the
others but that seems a bit of a stretch; it doesn't explain why there
is no trace of anything developing in later stages and no one has ever
been able to create laboratory conditions that have allowed new life
to develop. Miller-Urey got as far as amino acids but that is a long
way from a life form.
Just to be clear, I am not endorsing MarkE's arguments; I'm simply
challenging the Gould statement and the "all you need" comment.

The new life forms don't have any ecological niches available, because
they're already occupied by fully adapted life. You'd have to have some
strong advantage to prevail (it does happen, but rarely).

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 08:32:42 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:57:43 -0800, erik simpson
[snip for focus]

Post by erik simpson
Self-catalyzing time for a strand of RNA is probably on the order of
minutes. A black smoker need only be present for few years, and the
early earth had a much hotter interior means that there were at least
millions of them. As SJ Gould remarked "life may be as common as
quartz". Indeed. All you need is hot water and a thermal or chemical
gradient and you're good to go.

If that is the case, why have we not seen any new life forms develop
from scratch in the last several billion years with every form of life
we know descending from a single origin?
I know the typical response is that in the early earth, there were
possibly numerous life forms with one dominant one devouring the
others but that seems a bit of a stretch; it doesn't explain why there
is no trace of anything developing in later stages and no one has ever
been able to create laboratory conditions that have allowed new life
to develop. Miller-Urey got as far as amino acids but that is a long
way from a life form.
Just to be clear, I am not endorsing MarkE's arguments; I'm simply
challenging the Gould statement and the "all you need" comment.

The new life forms don't have any ecological niches available, because
they're already occupied by fully adapted life. You'd have to have some
strong advantage to prevail (it does happen, but rarely).

Hmmm .... lots of niches for the development of the many many millions
of life forms that have evolved over billions of years but no niches
available for new forms to evolve. As I said, sounds like a bit of a
stretch.

[erik simpson]

Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 08:32:42 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:57:43 -0800, erik simpson
[snip for focus]

Post by erik simpson
Self-catalyzing time for a strand of RNA is probably on the order of
minutes. A black smoker need only be present for few years, and the
early earth had a much hotter interior means that there were at least
millions of them. As SJ Gould remarked "life may be as common as
quartz". Indeed. All you need is hot water and a thermal or chemical
gradient and you're good to go.

If that is the case, why have we not seen any new life forms develop
from scratch in the last several billion years with every form of life
we know descending from a single origin?
I know the typical response is that in the early earth, there were
possibly numerous life forms with one dominant one devouring the
others but that seems a bit of a stretch; it doesn't explain why there
is no trace of anything developing in later stages and no one has ever
been able to create laboratory conditions that have allowed new life
to develop. Miller-Urey got as far as amino acids but that is a long
way from a life form.
Just to be clear, I am not endorsing MarkE's arguments; I'm simply
challenging the Gould statement and the "all you need" comment.

The new life forms don't have any ecological niches available, because
they're already occupied by fully adapted life. You'd have to have some
strong advantage to prevail (it does happen, but rarely).

Hmmm .... lots of niches for the development of the many many millions
of life forms that have evolved over billions of years but no niches
available for new forms to evolve. As I said, sounds like a bit of a
stretch.

It is a stretch, but the new forms aren't there. My account may be a
"just-so story", so anyone interested should continue looking.

[LDagget]

Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 08:32:42 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:57:43 -0800, erik simpson
[snip for focus]

Post by erik simpson
Self-catalyzing time for a strand of RNA is probably on the order of
minutes. A black smoker need only be present for few years, and the
early earth had a much hotter interior means that there were at least
millions of them. As SJ Gould remarked "life may be as common as
quartz". Indeed. All you need is hot water and a thermal or chemical
gradient and you're good to go.

If that is the case, why have we not seen any new life forms develop
from scratch in the last several billion years with every form of life
we know descending from a single origin?
I know the typical response is that in the early earth, there were
possibly numerous life forms with one dominant one devouring the
others but that seems a bit of a stretch; it doesn't explain why there
is no trace of anything developing in later stages and no one has ever
been able to create laboratory conditions that have allowed new life
to develop. Miller-Urey got as far as amino acids but that is a long
way from a life form.
Just to be clear, I am not endorsing MarkE's arguments; I'm simply
challenging the Gould statement and the "all you need" comment.

The new life forms don't have any ecological niches available, because
they're already occupied by fully adapted life. You'd have to have some
strong advantage to prevail (it does happen, but rarely).

Hmmm .... lots of niches for the development of the many many millions
of life forms that have evolved over billions of years but no niches
available for new forms to evolve. As I said, sounds like a bit of a
stretch.

Only if you fail to think about it.
For new life it evolve, it has to have a significant supply of ready
food/energy to power its emerging metabolism. The initial chemical
hypercycles would not be expected to be efficient in the way they
convert
their primary energy source into the synthesis of derived chemical
structures like specific lipids and polymers.

Moreover, any such reservoir of protolife would be a rich feeding ground
for life that had already evolved.

That is completely consistent with life as we know it now where other
life competing for the same resources is usually the top threat to its
continued existence.

Indeed, the supposition that life as we know it is the result of an
early
"winner" having driven all other competitors into extinction as part of
a
race to consume available resources was put forward at least by the
1950s
by scientists observing life.

So it's not a stretch or facile excuse. It's what any reasonably
thoughtful biologist concludes. The existence of cellular life
effectively
precludes a subsequent independent re-emergence of cellular life. It
would
be like expecting a child with no knowledge of current racing cars to
build a racing car that could win a race against a fleet of well evolved
racing cars.

[Martin Harran]

Post by LDagget

Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 08:32:42 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:57:43 -0800, erik simpson
[snip for focus]

Post by erik simpson
Self-catalyzing time for a strand of RNA is probably on the order of
minutes. A black smoker need only be present for few years, and the
early earth had a much hotter interior means that there were at least
millions of them. As SJ Gould remarked "life may be as common as
quartz". Indeed. All you need is hot water and a thermal or chemical
gradient and you're good to go.

If that is the case, why have we not seen any new life forms develop
from scratch in the last several billion years with every form of life
we know descending from a single origin?
I know the typical response is that in the early earth, there were
possibly numerous life forms with one dominant one devouring the
others but that seems a bit of a stretch; it doesn't explain why there
is no trace of anything developing in later stages and no one has ever
been able to create laboratory conditions that have allowed new life
to develop. Miller-Urey got as far as amino acids but that is a long
way from a life form.
Just to be clear, I am not endorsing MarkE's arguments; I'm simply
challenging the Gould statement and the "all you need" comment.

The new life forms don't have any ecological niches available, because
they're already occupied by fully adapted life. You'd have to have some
strong advantage to prevail (it does happen, but rarely).

Hmmm .... lots of niches for the development of the many many millions
of life forms that have evolved over billions of years but no niches
available for new forms to evolve. As I said, sounds like a bit of a
stretch.

Only if you fail to think about it.
For new life it evolve, it has to have a significant supply of ready
food/energy to power its emerging metabolism. The initial chemical
hypercycles would not be expected to be efficient in the way they
convert
their primary energy source into the synthesis of derived chemical
structures like specific lipids and polymers.
Moreover, any such reservoir of protolife would be a rich feeding ground
for life that had already evolved.

All of which seems to contradict Gould's statement and Eric's comment
that all you need is hot water and a thermal or chemical gradient and
you're good to go - that is what I was challenging.

MarkE and his fellow ID travellers are wrong in trying to use the
exceptionality of OOL as some sort of proof of a Designer but that
doesn't change its exceptionality.

Post by LDagget
That is completely consistent with life as we know it now where other
life competing for the same resources is usually the top threat to its
continued existence.
Indeed, the supposition that life as we know it is the result of an
early
"winner" having driven all other competitors into extinction as part of
a
race to consume available resources was put forward at least by the
1950s
by scientists observing life.
So it's not a stretch or facile excuse. It's what any reasonably
thoughtful biologist concludes. The existence of cellular life
effectively
precludes a subsequent independent re-emergence of cellular life. It
would
be like expecting a child with no knowledge of current racing cars to
build a racing car that could win a race against a fleet of well evolved
racing cars.

[LDagget]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by LDagget

Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 08:32:42 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:57:43 -0800, erik simpson
[snip for focus]

Post by erik simpson
Self-catalyzing time for a strand of RNA is probably on the order of
minutes. A black smoker need only be present for few years, and the
early earth had a much hotter interior means that there were at least
millions of them. As SJ Gould remarked "life may be as common as
quartz". Indeed. All you need is hot water and a thermal or chemical
gradient and you're good to go.

If that is the case, why have we not seen any new life forms develop
from scratch in the last several billion years with every form of life
we know descending from a single origin?
I know the typical response is that in the early earth, there were
possibly numerous life forms with one dominant one devouring the
others but that seems a bit of a stretch; it doesn't explain why there
is no trace of anything developing in later stages and no one has ever
been able to create laboratory conditions that have allowed new life
to develop. Miller-Urey got as far as amino acids but that is a long
way from a life form.
Just to be clear, I am not endorsing MarkE's arguments; I'm simply
challenging the Gould statement and the "all you need" comment.

The new life forms don't have any ecological niches available, because
they're already occupied by fully adapted life. You'd have to have some
strong advantage to prevail (it does happen, but rarely).

Hmmm .... lots of niches for the development of the many many millions
of life forms that have evolved over billions of years but no niches
available for new forms to evolve. As I said, sounds like a bit of a
stretch.

Only if you fail to think about it.
For new life it evolve, it has to have a significant supply of ready
food/energy to power its emerging metabolism. The initial chemical
hypercycles would not be expected to be efficient in the way they
convert
their primary energy source into the synthesis of derived chemical
structures like specific lipids and polymers.
Moreover, any such reservoir of protolife would be a rich feeding ground
for life that had already evolved.

All of which seems to contradict Gould's statement and Eric's comment
that all you need is hot water and a thermal or chemical gradient and
you're good to go - that is what I was challenging.
MarkE and his fellow ID travellers are wrong in trying to use the
exceptionality of OOL as some sort of proof of a Designer but that
doesn't change its exceptionality.

No. It takes creative misreading to claim that.
Perhaps that's a bit harsh but if you don't really understand
the thermodynamics and kinetics of biochemistry --- sufficiently
to speculate intelligently about potential pathways towards
abiogenesis --- then attempting to understand what competent people
write is going to be very difficult.

As for the "all you need" comment, it's fair to add something about
and time to 'evolve' without being eaten by life that beat you to it.

[DB Cates]

Post by LDagget

Post by Martin Harran

Post by LDagget

Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 08:32:42 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:57:43 -0800, erik simpson
[snip for focus]

  Self-catalyzing time for a strand of RNA is probably on the
order of
minutes.  A black smoker need only be present for few years, and the
early earth had a much hotter interior means that there were at least
millions of them.  As SJ Gould remarked "life may be as common as
quartz". Indeed.  All you need is hot water and a thermal or
chemical
gradient and you're good to go.

If that is the case, why have we not seen any new life forms develop
from scratch in the last several billion years with every form of life
we know descending from a single origin?
I know the typical response is that in the early earth, there were
possibly numerous life forms with one dominant one devouring the
others but that seems a bit of a stretch; it doesn't explain why there
is no trace of anything developing in later stages and no one has ever
been able to create laboratory conditions that have allowed new life
to develop. Miller-Urey got as far as amino acids but that is a long
way from a life form.
Just to be clear, I am not endorsing MarkE's arguments; I'm simply
challenging the Gould statement and the "all you need" comment.

The new life forms don't have any ecological niches available, because
they're already occupied by fully adapted life.  You'd have to have
some
strong advantage to prevail (it does happen, but rarely).

Hmmm .... lots of niches for the development of the many many millions
of life forms that have evolved over billions of years but no niches
available for new forms to evolve. As I said, sounds like a bit of a
stretch.

Only if you fail to think about it.
For new life it evolve, it has to have a significant supply of ready
food/energy to power its emerging metabolism. The initial chemical
hypercycles would not be expected to be efficient in the way they
convert
their primary energy source into the synthesis of derived chemical
structures like specific lipids and polymers.
Moreover, any such reservoir of protolife would be a rich feeding ground
for life that had already evolved.

All of which seems to contradict Gould's statement and Eric's comment
that all you need is hot water and a thermal or chemical gradient and
you're good to go - that is what I was challenging.
MarkE and his fellow ID travellers are wrong in trying to use the
exceptionality of OOL as some sort of proof of a Designer but that
doesn't change its exceptionality.

No. It takes creative misreading to claim that.
Perhaps that's a bit harsh but if you don't really understand
the thermodynamics and kinetics of biochemistry --- sufficiently
to speculate intelligently about potential pathways towards
abiogenesis --- then attempting to understand what competent people
write is going to be very difficult.
As for the "all you need" comment, it's fair to add something about
and time to 'evolve' without being eaten by life that beat you to it.

Even fairer to grant that, in context (OoL), that is a given. No need to
be explicit.

[Ernest Major]

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:57:43 -0800, erik simpson
[snip for focus]

Post by erik simpson
Self-catalyzing time for a strand of RNA is probably on the order of
minutes. A black smoker need only be present for few years, and the
early earth had a much hotter interior means that there were at least
millions of them. As SJ Gould remarked "life may be as common as
quartz". Indeed. All you need is hot water and a thermal or chemical
gradient and you're good to go.

If that is the case, why have we not seen any new life forms develop
from scratch in the last several billion years with every form of life
we know descending from a single origin?
I know the typical response is that in the early earth, there were
possibly numerous life forms with one dominant one devouring the
others but that seems a bit of a stretch; it doesn't explain why there
is no trace of anything developing in later stages and no one has ever
been able to create laboratory conditions that have allowed new life
to develop. Miller-Urey got as far as amino acids but that is a long
way from a life form.
Just to be clear, I am not endorsing MarkE's arguments; I'm simply
challenging the Gould statement and the "all you need" comment.

A point I was thinking of mentioning to Mark Ellington - human intuition
is a poor guide to processes that operate on spatial and temporal
timescale far removed from everyday experience. Not all processes can be
replicated on laboratory scale in human timescales. (Try to produce a
star or a volcano in a laboratory.) I think that we are within sight of
directed abiogenesis in the laboratory (or have already achieved it if
one considers viruses living), but I have no reason to think that
spontaneous abiogenesis of something comparable to cellular life is
possible on those scales. (There's a report of spontaneous formation of
replicating RNAs in a system - but this system includes the complex
macromolecule Q-beta replicase, so even if one argues that this is a
case of spontaneous abiogenesis, it is not relevant to the origin of
life on earth.)

People have found abiotic routes to more than just the amino acids
generated by the Miller-Urey experiment.

We don't know whether life arose only once on earth. We don't even know
whether the descendants of only one origin of life are currently present
on earth. Environmental DNA studies have discovered the existence of
divergent bacterial and archaeal clades that we had known nothing about.
Microorganisms with a different underlying biochemistry would be even
more difficult to find.

If life did originate more than once early in Earth history, it's is
more than possible that the descendants of some instances would be
outcompeted into extinction, or even just lost due to environmental
change - perhaps the Great Oxidation Event saw them off (personally I
doubt that any survive so long, but see the above comment about human
intuition).

I have speculated before that prior to LUCA there were waves of
replacement as lineages added to their genetic codes, and the ones with
more biochemical versatility outcompeted their sister groups. For adding
cysteine to the genetic code allows the production of more stable and
presumably more effective proteins.

There are a couple of reasons to think that more recent abiogenesis is
not possible - firstly the chemical environment is different, and
secondly there are living organisms that would see any new arrivals on
the block as food. And if those reasons are invalid, and it did arise,
it would lack the billions of years of improvement shared by organisms
with older ancestry and would likely be outcompeted and go extinct. And
even if that wasn't the case the smaller and less diverse a clade is the
more likely it is to go extinct; if abiogenesis occurred in the Jurassic
and its descendants went extinct in the Cretaceous, how would we know?

A couple of parallels

Two types of symbiogenetic organelles are prevalent in living eukaryotes
- mitochondria and their derivatives and plastids and their derivative.
There is a more recent one, the cyanelles of Paulinella, with a
restricted phylogenetic range, and some pre-organellar symbionts. Can we
be confident that the cyanelle-containing clade will not go extinct in a
geologically short time period? How do we know that other organelles
didn't arise in lineages that have subsequently gone extinct.

Eukaryotes contain several ancient multicellular lineages (e.g. animals,
kelps and plants, plus however many exist among other algae, fungi and
slime moulds). There is a more recent clade - the volvocids - with a
minimum level of cellular differentiation. Can we be confident that the
volvocids will not go extinct in a geologically short time period? How
do we know that other multicellular lineages haven't arisen and
subsequently gone extinct.

[LDagget]

Post by Ernest Major
I have speculated before that prior to LUCA there were waves of
replacement as lineages added to their genetic codes, and the ones with
more biochemical versatility outcompeted their sister groups. For adding
cysteine to the genetic code allows the production of more stable and
presumably more effective proteins.

I generally agree with everything else you wrote but would caution you
regards that point on cyseine/cystine. A more interesting role would be
to have differential function intracellularly (reducing environment) and
externally. Consider rolls of proteases and other digestive enzymes
(and just as significantly, inhibitors of the same working defense)
that activate outside the cell. Biowarfare between organisms competing
for resources is of course a theme for this thread but always important.

I'd add that intracellular disulfides seem to be a secondary development
to the role these play in extracellular environments.

[jillery]

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

There were many warm little ponds, spread throughout the young Earth,
all multiplying that probability. Try to keep that in mind.

[MarkE]

Post by jillery

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

There were many warm little ponds, spread throughout the young Earth,
all multiplying that probability. Try to keep that in mind.

Of course, but that doesn't solve the problem of time:

10 million ponds x 10 years != 1 pond x 100 million years

You need to develop a self-replicating entity that also self-synthesises
nucleotides (i.e. no longer depends on environmental supply). Aka a
protocell. This requires an unbroken development process (lineage) over
millions of years, i.e. one pond, or connected ponds.

And this one pond continuously pumping in a supply fresh nucleotides for
MILLIONS of years.

No floods, droughts or interruption of supply allowed. For MILLIONS of
years.

Not a chance on a young Earth (or any Earth for that matter).

[a***@littlepinkcloud.invalid]

Post by MarkE

Post by jillery

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can?t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

There were many warm little ponds, spread throughout the young Earth,
all multiplying that probability. Try to keep that in mind.

10 million ponds x 10 years != 1 pond x 100 million years

x ~ 100 quintillion Earthlike planets around Sunlike stars.

Andrew.

[MarkE]

Post by a***@littlepinkcloud.invalid

Post by MarkE

Post by jillery

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can?t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

There were many warm little ponds, spread throughout the young Earth,
all multiplying that probability. Try to keep that in mind.

10 million ponds x 10 years != 1 pond x 100 million years

x ~ 100 quintillion Earthlike planets around Sunlike stars.
Andrew.

This is an interesting question. If it were problem that could be solved
by enough monkeys, typewriters and time, then yes.

The formation of a protocell is not a single chance event (or small
number of events) with extremely low probability. Rather, it is a
connected sequence of many events. This requires a supply of building
blocks that is stable and continuous over millions of years. My
contention is this is geologically and environmentally a physical
impossibility. Sooner or later, a drought, flood, earthquake, meteorite
impact etc will reset the process a short way into the timeline
required. No amount of "suitable" planetary systems can solve this.

To recap: A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say)
must sustain a far-from-equilibrium system for millions of years. You
can’t pause the process, because any developing polymers will fall apart
and reset the clock.

This will fail as described on 100 quintillion Earthlike planets around
Sunlike stars.

[jillery]

Post by MarkE

Post by jillery

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

There were many warm little ponds, spread throughout the young Earth,
all multiplying that probability. Try to keep that in mind.

10 million ponds x 10 years != 1 pond x 100 million years
You need to develop a self-replicating entity that also self-synthesises
nucleotides (i.e. no longer depends on environmental supply). Aka a
protocell. This requires an unbroken development process (lineage) over
millions of years, i.e. one pond, or connected ponds.
And this one pond continuously pumping in a supply fresh nucleotides for
MILLIONS of years.
No floods, droughts or interruption of supply allowed. For MILLIONS of
years.
Not a chance on a young Earth (or any Earth for that matter).

Your arguments above assume unnecessary requirements. It's not clear
what you mean by "self-synthesises". There are no life systems that
don't depend on the environment; even autotrophs need to pull raw
materials and energy from it. It's also not clear what you expect
your presumptive "protocell" had to do.

My understanding is current research assumes the first
self-reproducing *systems* would have been very dependent on the
environment to provide the conditions they needed to sustain
themselves, ex. proton gradients, before they eventually evolved
more-or-less independent protocells.

It's unsurprising that the closer to modern life you specify your
presumptive "protocell", the less likely unguided natural processes
would create them. Pasteur was quite right that modern life can't
generate spontaneously, with or without the aid of intelligent
designers. So yes, the first protocells almost certainly didn't use
complex biochemical feedback systems on which modern life relies. The
whole point is life evolved them over time, after unguided natural
processes organized the first self-reproducing *systems*.

WRT floods and droughts and other environmental events, they would
have been part of the *systems* that eventually evolved more-or-less
independent protocells. And yes, there are many environments on Earth
which have existed for MILLIONS of years; ex. oceans.

[MarkE]

Post by jillery

Post by MarkE

Post by jillery

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

There were many warm little ponds, spread throughout the young Earth,
all multiplying that probability. Try to keep that in mind.

10 million ponds x 10 years != 1 pond x 100 million years
You need to develop a self-replicating entity that also self-synthesises
nucleotides (i.e. no longer depends on environmental supply). Aka a
protocell. This requires an unbroken development process (lineage) over
millions of years, i.e. one pond, or connected ponds.
And this one pond continuously pumping in a supply fresh nucleotides for
MILLIONS of years.
No floods, droughts or interruption of supply allowed. For MILLIONS of
years.
Not a chance on a young Earth (or any Earth for that matter).

Your arguments above assume unnecessary requirements. It's not clear
what you mean by "self-synthesises". There are no life systems that
don't depend on the environment; even autotrophs need to pull raw
materials and energy from it. It's also not clear what you expect
your presumptive "protocell" had to do.
My understanding is current research assumes the first
self-reproducing *systems* would have been very dependent on the
environment to provide the conditions they needed to sustain
themselves, ex. proton gradients, before they eventually evolved
more-or-less independent protocells.

Broadly, the steps would be:

1. Self-replicating polymer - environment supplies monomers

2. Non-autonomous protocell - environment supplies monomers, lipids,
etc, which are used directly by the cell

3. Autonomous protocell - environment supplies food which the cell
converts into monomers, lipids, etc

I'm referring to reaching step 3.

Post by jillery
It's unsurprising that the closer to modern life you specify your
presumptive "protocell", the less likely unguided natural processes
would create them. Pasteur was quite right that modern life can't
generate spontaneously, with or without the aid of intelligent
designers. So yes, the first protocells almost certainly didn't use
complex biochemical feedback systems on which modern life relies. The
whole point is life evolved them over time, after unguided natural
processes organized the first self-reproducing *systems*.
WRT floods and droughts and other environmental events, they would
have been part of the *systems* that eventually evolved more-or-less
independent protocells. And yes, there are many environments on Earth
which have existed for MILLIONS of years; ex. oceans.

[MarkE]

Post by MarkE
1. Self-replicating polymer - environment supplies monomers
2. Non-autonomous protocell - environment supplies monomers, lipids,
etc, which are used directly by the cell
3. Autonomous protocell    - environment supplies food which the cell
converts into monomers, lipids, etc
I'm referring to reaching step 3.

In step 3, "converts" is essentially metabolism, the three main
functions of which are: the conversion of the energy in food to energy
available to run cellular processes; the conversion of food to building
blocks of proteins, lipids, nucleic acids, and some carbohydrates; and
the elimination of metabolic wastes.

[Mark Isaak]

Post by jillery

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

There were many warm little ponds, spread throughout the young Earth,
all multiplying that probability. Try to keep that in mind.

Also factor in the unknown but probably large number of other earth-like
planets where similar processes could occur. If things had gone a
little differently elsewhere, we might be calling a planet in a
completely different galaxy "Earth."

Also keep in mind that life has arisen on Earth somehow (I have seen it
here, after all). Abiogenesis researchers are looking for the most
plausible mechanism for an event that was known to have happened.
Difficulties with earth-based biogenesis don't negate the fact that
panspermy and magic are, to all appearances, still less likely.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 10:38:13 -0800

Post by Mark Isaak

Post by jillery

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

There were many warm little ponds, spread throughout the young Earth,
all multiplying that probability. Try to keep that in mind.

Also factor in the unknown but probably large number of other earth-like
planets where similar processes could occur. If things had gone a
little differently elsewhere, we might be calling a planet in a
completely different galaxy "Earth."
Also keep in mind that life has arisen on Earth somehow (I have seen it
here, after all). Abiogenesis researchers are looking for the most
plausible mechanism for an event that was known to have happened.
Difficulties with earth-based biogenesis don't negate the fact that
panspermy and magic are, to all appearances, still less likely.

Not quite panspermy, but life could have started earlier in a more
favourable pond on Mars, then a chance bolide might have seeded an Earth
that was a bit more favourable later.
Alternatively, having life exist deep down shelters it from heavy
impacts and gives it a chance to "re-emerge" after a deadly wipeout.

Getting any passing god interested in the project (and staying with
it) always seems as bit harder.

[RonO]

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a self-
replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more time
is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

So how much in denial did you have to dive in order to come back with
this argument? Willful ignorance is lying to yourself.

Explain how you have reconciled the fact that the origin of life on this
planet is not Biblical, so you would be found to be worshiping the wrong
designer if the origin of life on earth requires some other god's help?
It would be the wrong god. Right?

The gap denial doesn't do you any good when the gaps do not support the
Biblical version of creation. You have to start admitting that the
Bible is wrong, and can't be trusted on these matters, so there is no
reason to claim some god is needed to fill that gap. The other
creationists on TO got that from the Top Six, so what kind of lies do
you have to keep telling yourself to avoid that?

Most creationists have accepted that you can't rely on the Bible to be
correct about the creation. It has been known for a very long time that
the earth is not flat, there is no firmament above the earth that the
designer has to open to let the rain fall through. The earth is not the
center of the universe. The order of creation described in Genesis is
wrong. There is no reason for the gap denial any longer. You are not
supporting the existence of the Biblical designer doing this. You are
just in conflict with creationists like Denton that think that his
designer got the ball rolling with the Big Bang and it has all unfolded
into what we have today, and creationists like Denton don't care if you
are right or wrong. Whether you are right or wrong obviously does not
matter to science. Science has to deal with what exists.

The Biblical god is not the one that fills the existing origin of life
gap. You are just arguing against the existence of the god described in
the Bible. The other creationists on TO recognized the fact that if
some legitimate ID science was ever accomplished it would just be more
science to deny because that designer would not be the Biblical
designer. The last TO IDiots no longer support the ID scam. They are
still creationists, but they do not want to believe in the designer that
fills the Top Six gaps supporting intelligent design. The origin of
life is #3.

It does look like there was an RNA phase before the genetic code
evolved. The fact is that no one knows what the first self replicating
molecules were. Once these self replicating molecules became large
enough they would have catalytic ability dependent on their three
dimensional structure and not only dependent on their reactive chemical
parts. Before RNA my take is that there were self replicating molecules
that would evolve secondary catalytic activities that supported their
replication. They could have evolved the ability to make lipids and
formed lipid bilayers. They probably could have started to make
nucleotides. They would have used them for the same function that they
are still used today. Nucleotides are very efficient energy storage and
transfer molecules. ATP is still the main energy coin in the cell, but
the other nucleotides are also used as energy transfer molecules in
various chemical reactions. Life could have evolved for ATP to have
that function. RNA polymers would just be the initial means to store
nucleotides so that they were less likely to leak out of the first
cells. Those polymers would have the opportunity to evolve replicating
ability due to the base-pairing ability of the nucleotides.

There is no reason to believe that RNA polymers were required to
initiate self replication.

Ron Okimoto

[MarkE]

Post by RonO

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world,
and other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply
of these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous
base, sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a self-
replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of
self-synthesising nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million
years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because
any developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically
has vanishingly small probability.

So how much in denial did you have to dive in order to come back with
this argument?  Willful ignorance is lying to yourself.
Explain how you have reconciled the fact that the origin of life on this
planet is not Biblical, so you would be found to be worshiping the wrong
designer if the origin of life on earth requires some other god's help?
It would be the wrong god.  Right?
The gap denial doesn't do you any good when the gaps do not support the
Biblical version of creation.  You have to start admitting that the
Bible is wrong, and can't be trusted on these matters, so there is no
reason to claim some god is needed to fill that gap.  The other
creationists on TO got that from the Top Six, so what kind of lies do
you have to keep telling yourself to avoid that?
Most creationists have accepted that you can't rely on the Bible to be
correct about the creation.  It has been known for a very long time that
the earth is not flat, there is no firmament above the earth that the
designer has to open to let the rain fall through.  The earth is not the
center of the universe.  The order of creation described in Genesis is
wrong.  There is no reason for the gap denial any longer.  You are not
supporting the existence of the Biblical designer doing this.  You are
just in conflict with creationists like Denton that think that his
designer got the ball rolling with the Big Bang and it has all unfolded
into what we have today, and creationists like Denton don't care if you
are right or wrong.  Whether you are right or wrong obviously does not
matter to science.  Science has to deal with what exists.
The Biblical god is not the one that fills the existing origin of life
gap.  You are just arguing against the existence of the god described in
the Bible.  The other creationists on TO recognized the fact that if
some legitimate ID science was ever accomplished it would just be more
science to deny because that designer would not be the Biblical
designer.  The last TO IDiots no longer support the ID scam.  They are
still creationists, but they do not want to believe in the designer that
fills the Top Six gaps supporting intelligent design.  The origin of
life is #3.
It does look like there was an RNA phase before the genetic code
evolved.  The fact is that no one knows what the first self replicating
molecules were.  Once these self replicating molecules became large
enough they would have catalytic ability dependent on their three
dimensional structure and not only dependent on their reactive chemical
parts.  Before RNA my take is that there were self replicating molecules
that would evolve secondary catalytic activities that supported their
replication.  They could have evolved the ability to make lipids and
formed lipid bilayers.  They probably could have started to make
nucleotides.  They would have used them for the same function that they
are still used today.  Nucleotides are very efficient energy storage and
transfer molecules.  ATP is still the main energy coin in the cell, but
the other nucleotides are also used as energy transfer molecules in
various chemical reactions.  Life could have evolved for ATP to have
that function.  RNA polymers would just be the initial means to store
nucleotides so that they were less likely to leak out of the first
cells.  Those polymers would have the opportunity to evolve replicating
ability due to the base-pairing ability of the nucleotides.
There is no reason to believe that RNA polymers were required to
initiate self replication.
Ron Okimoto

Generalise "nucleotides" to "building blocks" if you wish. The same
logic applies.

[RonO]

Post by MarkE

Post by RonO

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world,
and other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the
supply of these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous
base, sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building
blocks. You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient
concentration, purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location,
etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a self-
replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-
synthesising nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because
any developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically
has vanishingly small probability.

So how much in denial did you have to dive in order to come back with
this argument?  Willful ignorance is lying to yourself.
Explain how you have reconciled the fact that the origin of life on
this planet is not Biblical, so you would be found to be worshiping
the wrong designer if the origin of life on earth requires some other
god's help? It would be the wrong god.  Right?
The gap denial doesn't do you any good when the gaps do not support
the Biblical version of creation.  You have to start admitting that
the Bible is wrong, and can't be trusted on these matters, so there is
no reason to claim some god is needed to fill that gap.  The other
creationists on TO got that from the Top Six, so what kind of lies do
you have to keep telling yourself to avoid that?
Most creationists have accepted that you can't rely on the Bible to be
correct about the creation.  It has been known for a very long time
that the earth is not flat, there is no firmament above the earth that
the designer has to open to let the rain fall through.  The earth is
not the center of the universe.  The order of creation described in
Genesis is wrong.  There is no reason for the gap denial any longer.
You are not supporting the existence of the Biblical designer doing
this.  You are just in conflict with creationists like Denton that
think that his designer got the ball rolling with the Big Bang and it
has all unfolded into what we have today, and creationists like Denton
don't care if you are right or wrong.  Whether you are right or wrong
obviously does not matter to science.  Science has to deal with what
exists.
The Biblical god is not the one that fills the existing origin of life
gap.  You are just arguing against the existence of the god described
in the Bible.  The other creationists on TO recognized the fact that
if some legitimate ID science was ever accomplished it would just be
more science to deny because that designer would not be the Biblical
designer.  The last TO IDiots no longer support the ID scam.  They are
still creationists, but they do not want to believe in the designer
that fills the Top Six gaps supporting intelligent design.  The origin
of life is #3.
It does look like there was an RNA phase before the genetic code
evolved.  The fact is that no one knows what the first self
replicating molecules were.  Once these self replicating molecules
became large enough they would have catalytic ability dependent on
their three dimensional structure and not only dependent on their
reactive chemical parts.  Before RNA my take is that there were self
replicating molecules that would evolve secondary catalytic activities
that supported their replication.  They could have evolved the ability
to make lipids and formed lipid bilayers.  They probably could have
started to make nucleotides.  They would have used them for the same
function that they are still used today.  Nucleotides are very
efficient energy storage and transfer molecules.  ATP is still the
main energy coin in the cell, but the other nucleotides are also used
as energy transfer molecules in various chemical reactions.  Life
could have evolved for ATP to have that function.  RNA polymers would
just be the initial means to store nucleotides so that they were less
likely to leak out of the first cells.  Those polymers would have the
opportunity to evolve replicating ability due to the base-pairing
ability of the nucleotides.
There is no reason to believe that RNA polymers were required to
initiate self replication.
Ron Okimoto

Generalise "nucleotides" to "building blocks" if you wish. The same
logic applies.

Why keep the reduction and denial going?

You still can't reconcile this gap with your belief in the Bible. There
really isn't any reason to support denial for senseless denial purposes.
What would happen to your beliefs if the origin of life gap was found
to be filled with some other god than the one described in the Bible?
The TO IDiots knew when it was time to quit.

Gap denial is senseless when you do not want to believe in the god that
fills the gap.

The Supreme court has already told the creationists rubes this in the
1987 judgement against scientific creationism. The Top Six
god-of-the-gaps denial arguments were being used by the scientific
creationists, and the court stated that just because somethings remain
unknown was not support for the creationist alternative. This has
turned out to be unavoidably true for all the IDiotic creationists with
a brain that could still reason. It turned out that none of them wanted
any ID science to be accomplished because the gods that filled those
gaps were not the Biblical god and it would have just been more science
to deny.

You realize this too, but have to lie to yourself about reality. What
good does that do for you?

The Bible is wrong however the issue of the origin of life is decided.
Like all the other gaps that have been filled over time, we could figure
out a plausible path for the origin of life, and the gap would just be
like all the other 100% Biblical failures. There has never been a
god-did-it success. A miracle might happen and we might find that some
god was responsible for the origin of life on this planet, but that god
would not be the Biblical god. It is literally a lose, lose situation
for you.

Just recall how much time and effort that you put in to demonstrate that
fact for yourself. You were putting a lot of effort into defining the
gap, and what did you find out? The gap is not Biblical, and would have
to be something that isn't mentioned in the Bible, and cannot be
attributed to the Biblical designer.

Why did Sewell drop out the bacterial flagellum and the Cambrian
explosion from the Top six and place the others out of temporal order?
The bacterial flagellum and the Cambrian explosion are definitely not
Biblical gaps, and the other things do not occur in the Biblical order
of creation. The ID perp's presentation of the Top Six as a whole in
the order in which they must have logically occurred in this universe
was enough to make the IDiots most deeply into science denial like Pags,
Kalk and Bill to quit the ID scam. They are still Biblical
creationists, but they can no longer support the IDiotic science denial
that scientific creationism and the ID scam resorted to.

You never wanted to support the ID scam, so why keep supporting the gap
denial?

Ron Okimoto

[erik simpson]

Post by MarkE

Post by RonO

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world,
and other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the
supply of these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous
base, sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building
blocks. You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient
concentration, purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location,
etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a self-
replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of
self-synthesising nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million
years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because
any developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically
has vanishingly small probability.

So how much in denial did you have to dive in order to come back with
this argument?  Willful ignorance is lying to yourself.
Explain how you have reconciled the fact that the origin of life on
this planet is not Biblical, so you would be found to be worshiping
the wrong designer if the origin of life on earth requires some other
god's help? It would be the wrong god.  Right?
The gap denial doesn't do you any good when the gaps do not support
the Biblical version of creation.  You have to start admitting that
the Bible is wrong, and can't be trusted on these matters, so there is
no reason to claim some god is needed to fill that gap.  The other
creationists on TO got that from the Top Six, so what kind of lies do
you have to keep telling yourself to avoid that?
Most creationists have accepted that you can't rely on the Bible to be
correct about the creation.  It has been known for a very long time
that the earth is not flat, there is no firmament above the earth that
the designer has to open to let the rain fall through.  The earth is
not the center of the universe.  The order of creation described in
Genesis is wrong.  There is no reason for the gap denial any longer.
You are not supporting the existence of the Biblical designer doing
this.  You are just in conflict with creationists like Denton that
think that his designer got the ball rolling with the Big Bang and it
has all unfolded into what we have today, and creationists like Denton
don't care if you are right or wrong.  Whether you are right or wrong
obviously does not matter to science.  Science has to deal with what
exists.
The Biblical god is not the one that fills the existing origin of life
gap.  You are just arguing against the existence of the god described
in the Bible.  The other creationists on TO recognized the fact that
if some legitimate ID science was ever accomplished it would just be
more science to deny because that designer would not be the Biblical
designer.  The last TO IDiots no longer support the ID scam.  They are
still creationists, but they do not want to believe in the designer
that fills the Top Six gaps supporting intelligent design.  The origin
of life is #3.
It does look like there was an RNA phase before the genetic code
evolved.  The fact is that no one knows what the first self
replicating molecules were.  Once these self replicating molecules
became large enough they would have catalytic ability dependent on
their three dimensional structure and not only dependent on their
reactive chemical parts.  Before RNA my take is that there were self
replicating molecules that would evolve secondary catalytic activities
that supported their replication.  They could have evolved the ability
to make lipids and formed lipid bilayers.  They probably could have
started to make nucleotides.  They would have used them for the same
function that they are still used today.  Nucleotides are very
efficient energy storage and transfer molecules.  ATP is still the
main energy coin in the cell, but the other nucleotides are also used
as energy transfer molecules in various chemical reactions.  Life
could have evolved for ATP to have that function.  RNA polymers would
just be the initial means to store nucleotides so that they were less
likely to leak out of the first cells.  Those polymers would have the
opportunity to evolve replicating ability due to the base-pairing
ability of the nucleotides.
There is no reason to believe that RNA polymers were required to
initiate self replication.
Ron Okimoto

Generalise "nucleotides" to "building blocks" if you wish. The same
logic applies.

I might help to recognize that many scientists believe in God. "Natural
causes" just refer to what is seen, and has nothing to do with the
actual causes. Whether God was involved or not is a personal choice,
because the observed event speaks for itself.

In particular, it's pointless to try to argue that the appearance of
life is likely or not. It has no bearing on what we see.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 11:16:56 -0800, erik simpson
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip for focus]

Post by erik simpson
I might help to recognize that many scientists believe in God. "Natural
causes" just refer to what is seen, and has nothing to do with the
actual causes. Whether God was involved or not is a personal choice,
because the observed event speaks for itself.
In particular, it's pointless to try to argue that the appearance of
life is likely or not. It has no bearing on what we see.

Neither does it have any bearing on religious belief. Nobody in the ID
or Creationist camp has been able to offer any explanation as to how
they get from MarkE's protocell to a personal God with whom
we can interact.

[erik simpson]

Post by Martin Harran
On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 11:16:56 -0800, erik simpson
[snip for focus]

Post by erik simpson
I might help to recognize that many scientists believe in God. "Natural
causes" just refer to what is seen, and has nothing to do with the
actual causes. Whether God was involved or not is a personal choice,
because the observed event speaks for itself.
In particular, it's pointless to try to argue that the appearance of
life is likely or not. It has no bearing on what we see.

Neither does it have any bearing on religious belief. Nobody in the ID
or Creationist camp has been able to offer any explanation as to how
they get from MarkE's protocell to a personal God with whom
we can interact.

Exactly. Natural (sans God) or God-created or directed life can explain
what we see. "Science" can't tell the difference, and even Occam's
razor makes no choice.

[jillery]

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 08:36:19 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 11:16:56 -0800, erik simpson
[snip for focus]

Post by erik simpson
I might help to recognize that many scientists believe in God. "Natural
causes" just refer to what is seen, and has nothing to do with the
actual causes. Whether God was involved or not is a personal choice,
because the observed event speaks for itself.
In particular, it's pointless to try to argue that the appearance of
life is likely or not. It has no bearing on what we see.

Neither does it have any bearing on religious belief. Nobody in the ID
or Creationist camp has been able to offer any explanation as to how
they get from MarkE's protocell to a personal God with whom
we can interact.

Exactly. Natural (sans God) or God-created or directed life can explain
what we see. "Science" can't tell the difference, and even Occam's
razor makes no choice.

Not true. Using Occam's razor, God is an unnecessary actor. If one
insists God always existed, then the same reasoning allows life always
existed. Alternately, if one insists life had to arise by unguided
natural processes, then the same reasoning requires God to arise by
unguided natural processes, contra Kalam Cosmological Argument.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 16:54:56 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

Please provide the mathematical calculations which support
your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars; no
"but it seems too long!" whining.

[MarkE]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 16:54:56 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

Please provide the mathematical calculations which support
your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars; no
"but it seems too long!" whining.

At some point this would need to be calculated and quantified, so valid
request.

My discussion at this stage though is a line of reasoning that in
principle may significantly reduce the presumed probabilistic resources
available for the formation of an autonomous protocell.

In summary the argument is: if a hypothesised little warm pond (or
thermal vent, etc) has virtually zero chance of producing this
protocell, then no amount of ponds and planets will help:

P(OoL) = N_ponds x N_planets x P(protocell) x P(post-protocell)

If P(protocell) -> 0, then P(OoL) -> 0

Of course, it remains to be demonstrated that P(protocell) -> 0, but
would you agree with the logic of the argument?

[Ernest Major]

Post by MarkE

Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 16:54:56 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

Please provide the mathematical calculations which support
your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars; no
"but it seems too long!" whining.

At some point this would need to be calculated and quantified, so valid
request.
My discussion at this stage though is a line of reasoning that in
principle may significantly reduce the presumed probabilistic resources
available for the formation of an autonomous protocell.
In summary the argument is: if a hypothesised little warm pond (or
thermal vent, etc) has virtually zero chance of producing this
P(OoL) = N_ponds x N_planets x P(protocell) x P(post-protocell)
If P(protocell) -> 0, then P(OoL) -> 0
Of course, it remains to be demonstrated that P(protocell) -> 0, but
would you agree with the logic of the argument?

Given sufficient trials the occurrence of a low (per trial) probability
event becomes nearly inevitable. The assertion that "if ... has
virtually zero chance of producing this protocell, then no amount of
ponds and planets will help" - if the probability is non-zero the option
of adding more ponds and planets will generate a near certainty. If the
probability is sufficiently low, then the number of trials possible in
this universe can be too low to reach that near inevitability, but you
should be talking about numbers below around 10^-40. If you asked the
average person they would say that numbers orders of magnitude larger
are virtually zero. Add a multiverse and you require even smaller numbers.

[erik simpson]

Post by Ernest Major

Post by MarkE

Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 16:54:56 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

Please provide the mathematical calculations which support
your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars; no
"but it seems too long!" whining.

At some point this would need to be calculated and quantified, so
valid request.
My discussion at this stage though is a line of reasoning that in
principle may significantly reduce the presumed probabilistic
resources available for the formation of an autonomous protocell.
In summary the argument is: if a hypothesised little warm pond (or
thermal vent, etc) has virtually zero chance of producing this
P(OoL) = N_ponds x N_planets x P(protocell) x P(post-protocell)
If P(protocell) -> 0, then P(OoL) -> 0
Of course, it remains to be demonstrated that P(protocell) -> 0, but
would you agree with the logic of the argument?

Given sufficient trials the occurrence of a low (per trial) probability
event becomes nearly inevitable. The assertion that "if ... has
virtually zero chance of producing this protocell, then no amount of
ponds and planets will help" - if the probability is non-zero the option
of adding more ponds and planets will generate a near certainty. If the
probability is sufficiently low, then the number of trials possible in
this universe can be too low to reach that near inevitability, but you
should be talking about numbers below around 10^-40. If you asked the
average person they would say that numbers orders of magnitude larger
are virtually zero. Add a multiverse and you require even smaller numbers.

MaekE is stuck with his idea that only a zero probability of OOL is
necessary to prove the existence of god. He doesn't understand that god
can explain anything, including a high probability of OOL. He has a
real blind spot there, to be charitable.

[MarkE]

On 14/12/2024 3:06 am, erik simpson wrote:
"MaekE is stuck with his idea that only a zero probability of OOL is
necessary to prove the existence of god. He doesn't understand that god
can explain anything, including a high probability of OOL. He has a
real blind spot there, to be charitable."

Say, for argument's sake, we determined that the origin of life could
not be explained by natural causes.

Then by definition, we must conclude supernatural causes, and haggle
over the definition of supernatural.

Or, would you protest that an unknown natural cause must always remain
an option?

Eric, would you frame this differently?

[erik simpson]

Post by MarkE
"MaekE is stuck with his idea that only a zero probability of OOL is
necessary to prove the existence of god.  He doesn't understand that god
can explain anything, including a high probability of OOL.  He has a
real blind spot there, to be charitable."
Say, for argument's sake, we determined that the origin of life could
not be explained by natural causes.
Then by definition, we must conclude supernatural causes, and haggle
over the definition of supernatural.
Or, would you protest that an unknown natural cause must always remain
an option?
Eric, would you frame this differently?

I'll try. First I'll quote this: ..god
can explain anything, including a high probability of OOL. OOL is slef
evident; there it is. "Science" can't tell the defference between god
or natural causes, so practically speaking there isn't any difference.
God and natural causes for us is a choice. God's as good choice as any.

Dose that make it clearer?

[MarkE]

Post by MarkE
"MaekE is stuck with his idea that only a zero probability of OOL is
necessary to prove the existence of god.  He doesn't understand that
god can explain anything, including a high probability of OOL.  He has
a real blind spot there, to be charitable."
Say, for argument's sake, we determined that the origin of life could
not be explained by natural causes.
Then by definition, we must conclude supernatural causes, and haggle
over the definition of supernatural.
Or, would you protest that an unknown natural cause must always remain
an option?
Eric, would you frame this differently?

I'll try.  First I'll quote this: ..god
 can explain anything, including a high probability of OOL. OOL is slef
evident;  there it is.  "Science" can't tell the defference between god
or natural causes, so practically speaking there isn't any difference.
God and natural causes for us is a choice.  God's as good choice as any.
Dose that make it clearer?

It makes certain things clearer.

[Martin Harran]

Post by MarkE
"MaekE is stuck with his idea that only a zero probability of OOL is
necessary to prove the existence of god. He doesn't understand that god
can explain anything, including a high probability of OOL. He has a
real blind spot there, to be charitable."
Say, for argument's sake, we determined that the origin of life could
not be explained by natural causes.
Then by definition, we must conclude supernatural causes, and haggle
over the definition of supernatural.

No, all you can conclude is that we can't figure it out. A few
thousand years ago, people couldn't figure out how the sun moved
across the sky so they concluded it must be a god driving a fiery
chariot. How did that go?

The thing that you and other IDers either don't see or choose to
ignore is that the absence of an explanation doesn't prove anything,
you have to have some linkage between the unexplained problem and your
proposed answer. I asked you before how you get from your protocell to
a God we can interact with. As far as I remember, your answer was that
it wasn't up to you to figure that out. Well, I have news for you, if
you want to gain any credibility for your arguments, then you do have
to figure it out.

Post by MarkE
Or, would you protest that an unknown natural cause must always remain
an option?
Eric, would you frame this differently?

[MarkE]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
"MaekE is stuck with his idea that only a zero probability of OOL is
necessary to prove the existence of god. He doesn't understand that god
can explain anything, including a high probability of OOL. He has a
real blind spot there, to be charitable."
Say, for argument's sake, we determined that the origin of life could
not be explained by natural causes.
Then by definition, we must conclude supernatural causes, and haggle
over the definition of supernatural.

No, all you can conclude is that we can't figure it out. A few
thousand years ago, people couldn't figure out how the sun moved
across the sky so they concluded it must be a god driving a fiery
chariot. How did that go?
The thing that you and other IDers either don't see or choose to
ignore is that the absence of an explanation doesn't prove anything,
you have to have some linkage between the unexplained problem and your
proposed answer. I asked you before how you get from your protocell to
a God we can interact with. As far as I remember, your answer was that
it wasn't up to you to figure that out. Well, I have news for you, if
you want to gain any credibility for your arguments, then you do have
to figure it out.

There's nuance here. As I've said here many times before, there is the
error of prematurely invoking divine action. When that is done, it is
shown to be error by subsequent scientific advances. That's an appeal to
the god-of-the-gaps.

However, consider this scenario. Let's say there were 500 years of
active OoL research from this time on. What if (say) little further
progress has been made. In fact, the greatly enlarged body of
understanding and experimental results in this area have revealed that
(say) the barriers to the naturalistic formation of a viable protocell
are far, far deeper than than is regarded today.

What then?

Well, a person living 500 years from now still has a personal choice to
make:

Option 1. They may choose to say, "We just don't know, but keep looking;
I still have no need of that God hypothesis."

Option 2. Or they may choose a provisional position like this: "On the
basis of the accumulated scientific evidence, I'll take a closer look at
the God hypothesis, though continue looking for a natural explanation."

Of course, different people will make different choices in this scenario
for many different reasons.

My contention is that option 1 is actually a *more* reasonable and valid
application of science.

Moreover, I contend that we are much closer to this point than 500 years
away.

[Martin Harran]

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
"MaekE is stuck with his idea that only a zero probability of OOL is
necessary to prove the existence of god. He doesn't understand that god
can explain anything, including a high probability of OOL. He has a
real blind spot there, to be charitable."
Say, for argument's sake, we determined that the origin of life could
not be explained by natural causes.
Then by definition, we must conclude supernatural causes, and haggle
over the definition of supernatural.

No, all you can conclude is that we can't figure it out. A few
thousand years ago, people couldn't figure out how the sun moved
across the sky so they concluded it must be a god driving a fiery
chariot. How did that go?
The thing that you and other IDers either don't see or choose to
ignore is that the absence of an explanation doesn't prove anything,
you have to have some linkage between the unexplained problem and your
proposed answer. I asked you before how you get from your protocell to
a God we can interact with. As far as I remember, your answer was that
it wasn't up to you to figure that out. Well, I have news for you, if
you want to gain any credibility for your arguments, then you do have
to figure it out.

There's nuance here.

Again you make no attempt to address my actual question.

Post by MarkE
As I've said here many times before, there is the
error of prematurely invoking divine action.

That is exactly what ID does and you seem pretty much on the same
track.

Post by MarkE
When that is done, it is
shown to be error by subsequent scientific advances. That's an appeal to
the god-of-the-gaps.

And God-of-the-gaps is exactly what you are offering here, no matter
how you try to dress it up, until you offer some sort of tahyway from
the protocell to God..

Post by MarkE
However, consider this scenario. Let's say there were 500 years of
active OoL research from this time on. What if (say) little further
progress has been made. In fact, the greatly enlarged body of
understanding and experimental results in this area have revealed that
(say) the barriers to the naturalistic formation of a viable protocell
are far, far deeper than than is regarded today.
What then?

Nothing different - how long we don't know something has no impact on
the answer. The fact that it took thousands of years to figure out
that the sun is just another star didn't change the fact that that was
exactly what it was.

Post by MarkE
Well, a person living 500 years from now still has a personal choice to
Option 1. They may choose to say, "We just don't know, but keep looking;
I still have no need of that God hypothesis."

Why would they refer to the 'God hypothesis' at all? I use quotes
because it's not even a hypothesis until you outline a pathway that is
at least possible if not plausible.

Post by MarkE
Option 2. Or they may choose a provisional position like this: "On the
basis of the accumulated scientific evidence, I'll take a closer look at
the God hypothesis, though continue looking for a natural explanation."

People who would go for that option would likely already be
considering the 'God hypothesis'

Post by MarkE
Of course, different people will make different choices in this scenario
for many different reasons.

The reason is almost inevitably whether or not the person nis a
religious believer.

Can God and science be reconciled? Yes they can, no doubt about it in
my mind but not by turning the God that people generally worship into
some kind of designer fiddling about with protocells. Christians
believe that man is made in God's image; what have protocells to so
with that image?

Post by MarkE
My contention is that option 1 is actually a *more* reasonable and valid
application of science.
Moreover, I contend that we are much closer to this point than 500 years
away.

[MarkE]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
There's nuance here.

Again you make no attempt to address my actual question.

Post by MarkE
As I've said here many times before, there is the
error of prematurely invoking divine action.

That is exactly what ID does and you seem pretty much on the same
track.

Post by MarkE
When that is done, it is
shown to be error by subsequent scientific advances. That's an appeal to
the god-of-the-gaps.

And God-of-the-gaps is exactly what you are offering here, no matter
how you try to dress it up, until you offer some sort of tahyway from
the protocell to God..

Post by MarkE
However, consider this scenario. Let's say there were 500 years of
active OoL research from this time on. What if (say) little further
progress has been made. In fact, the greatly enlarged body of
understanding and experimental results in this area have revealed that
(say) the barriers to the naturalistic formation of a viable protocell
are far, far deeper than than is regarded today.
What then?

Nothing different - how long we don't know something has no impact on
the answer. The fact that it took thousands of years to figure out
that the sun is just another star didn't change the fact that that was
exactly what it was.

Post by MarkE
Well, a person living 500 years from now still has a personal choice to
Option 1. They may choose to say, "We just don't know, but keep looking;
I still have no need of that God hypothesis."

Why would they refer to the 'God hypothesis' at all? I use quotes
because it's not even a hypothesis until you outline a pathway that is
at least possible if not plausible.

Post by MarkE
Option 2. Or they may choose a provisional position like this: "On the
basis of the accumulated scientific evidence, I'll take a closer look at
the God hypothesis, though continue looking for a natural explanation."

People who would go for that option would likely already be
considering the 'God hypothesis'

Post by MarkE
Of course, different people will make different choices in this scenario
for many different reasons.

The reason is almost inevitably whether or not the person nis a
religious believer.
Can God and science be reconciled? Yes they can, no doubt about it in
my mind but not by turning the God that people generally worship into
some kind of designer fiddling about with protocells. Christians
believe that man is made in God's image; what have protocells to so
with that image?

Post by MarkE
My contention is that option 1 is actually a*more* reasonable and valid
application of science.
Moreover, I contend that we are much closer to this point than 500 years
away.

Christian de Duve put it this way: "Science is based on the working
hypothesis that things are naturally explainable. This may or may not be
true. But the only way to find out is to make every possible effort to
explain things naturally. Only if one fails - assuming failure can ever
be definitely established - would be entitled to state that what one is
studying is not naturally explainable."

That seems close what to what I'm proposing. Thoughts?

[Martin Harran]

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
There's nuance here.

Again you make no attempt to address my actual question.

Post by MarkE
As I've said here many times before, there is the
error of prematurely invoking divine action.

That is exactly what ID does and you seem pretty much on the same
track.

Post by MarkE
When that is done, it is
shown to be error by subsequent scientific advances. That's an appeal to
the god-of-the-gaps.

And God-of-the-gaps is exactly what you are offering here, no matter
how you try to dress it up, until you offer some sort of tahyway from
the protocell to God..

Post by MarkE
However, consider this scenario. Let's say there were 500 years of
active OoL research from this time on. What if (say) little further
progress has been made. In fact, the greatly enlarged body of
understanding and experimental results in this area have revealed that
(say) the barriers to the naturalistic formation of a viable protocell
are far, far deeper than than is regarded today.
What then?

Nothing different - how long we don't know something has no impact on
the answer. The fact that it took thousands of years to figure out
that the sun is just another star didn't change the fact that that was
exactly what it was.

Post by MarkE
Well, a person living 500 years from now still has a personal choice to
Option 1. They may choose to say, "We just don't know, but keep looking;
I still have no need of that God hypothesis."

Why would they refer to the 'God hypothesis' at all? I use quotes
because it's not even a hypothesis until you outline a pathway that is
at least possible if not plausible.

Post by MarkE
Option 2. Or they may choose a provisional position like this: "On the
basis of the accumulated scientific evidence, I'll take a closer look at
the God hypothesis, though continue looking for a natural explanation."

People who would go for that option would likely already be
considering the 'God hypothesis'

Post by MarkE
Of course, different people will make different choices in this scenario
for many different reasons.

The reason is almost inevitably whether or not the person nis a
religious believer.
Can God and science be reconciled? Yes they can, no doubt about it in
my mind but not by turning the God that people generally worship into
some kind of designer fiddling about with protocells. Christians
believe that man is made in God's image; what have protocells to so
with that image?

Post by MarkE
My contention is that option 1 is actually a*more* reasonable and valid
application of science.
Moreover, I contend that we are much closer to this point than 500 years
away.

Christian de Duve put it this way: "Science is based on the working
hypothesis that things are naturally explainable. This may or may not be
true. But the only way to find out is to make every possible effort to
explain things naturally. Only if one fails - assuming failure can ever
be definitely established - would be entitled to state that what one is
studying is not naturally explainable."
That seems close what to what I'm proposing. Thoughts?

First of all, I note that you left out the first sentence in that
quote - "Intelligent design is simply not a scientific theory" !

I'm not conversant with de Duve's ideas but I don't see him suggesting
that you can just jump from "not naturally explainable" to "Goddidit"
which is what you are trying to do. There are many possible reasons
why we might not be able explain something in natural ways - limits on
human intellectual competence is just one, lack of tools and equipment
is another. There is, of course, always the possibility that God did
indeed do it but if you are going to make a case for that, you have to
be able to offer some ideas about how or why he did it that way and
the strength of your argument will be directly proportional to how
tentative or how strong your ideas are. You are offering nothing so
that means your argument is worth nothing.

[MarkE]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
There's nuance here.

Again you make no attempt to address my actual question.

Post by MarkE
As I've said here many times before, there is the
error of prematurely invoking divine action.

That is exactly what ID does and you seem pretty much on the same
track.

Post by MarkE
When that is done, it is
shown to be error by subsequent scientific advances. That's an appeal to
the god-of-the-gaps.

And God-of-the-gaps is exactly what you are offering here, no matter
how you try to dress it up, until you offer some sort of tahyway from
the protocell to God..

Post by MarkE
However, consider this scenario. Let's say there were 500 years of
active OoL research from this time on. What if (say) little further
progress has been made. In fact, the greatly enlarged body of
understanding and experimental results in this area have revealed that
(say) the barriers to the naturalistic formation of a viable protocell
are far, far deeper than than is regarded today.
What then?

Nothing different - how long we don't know something has no impact on
the answer. The fact that it took thousands of years to figure out
that the sun is just another star didn't change the fact that that was
exactly what it was.

Post by MarkE
Well, a person living 500 years from now still has a personal choice to
Option 1. They may choose to say, "We just don't know, but keep looking;
I still have no need of that God hypothesis."

Why would they refer to the 'God hypothesis' at all? I use quotes
because it's not even a hypothesis until you outline a pathway that is
at least possible if not plausible.

Post by MarkE
Option 2. Or they may choose a provisional position like this: "On the
basis of the accumulated scientific evidence, I'll take a closer look at
the God hypothesis, though continue looking for a natural explanation."

People who would go for that option would likely already be
considering the 'God hypothesis'

Post by MarkE
Of course, different people will make different choices in this scenario
for many different reasons.

The reason is almost inevitably whether or not the person nis a
religious believer.
Can God and science be reconciled? Yes they can, no doubt about it in
my mind but not by turning the God that people generally worship into
some kind of designer fiddling about with protocells. Christians
believe that man is made in God's image; what have protocells to so
with that image?

Post by MarkE
My contention is that option 1 is actually a*more* reasonable and valid
application of science.
Moreover, I contend that we are much closer to this point than 500 years
away.

Christian de Duve put it this way: "Science is based on the working
hypothesis that things are naturally explainable. This may or may not be
true. But the only way to find out is to make every possible effort to
explain things naturally. Only if one fails - assuming failure can ever
be definitely established - would be entitled to state that what one is
studying is not naturally explainable."
That seems close what to what I'm proposing. Thoughts?

First of all, I note that you left out the first sentence in that
quote - "Intelligent design is simply not a scientific theory" !
I'm not conversant with de Duve's ideas but I don't see him suggesting
that you can just jump from "not naturally explainable" to "Goddidit"
which is what you are trying to do. There are many possible reasons
why we might not be able explain something in natural ways - limits on
human intellectual competence is just one, lack of tools and equipment
is another. There is, of course, always the possibility that God did
indeed do it but if you are going to make a case for that, you have to
be able to offer some ideas about how or why he did it that way and
the strength of your argument will be directly proportional to how
tentative or how strong your ideas are. You are offering nothing so
that means your argument is worth nothing.

No, wrong. Demonstrating an existing theory to be false has no
requirement to provide and demonstrate a viable alternative*.

Your arbitrary requirement that I "offer some ideas about how or why
[God] did it that way" or else I am "offering nothing so that means your
argument is worth nothing" says something about where you're coming from.

-----

* Example of a theory disproved without an alternative being offered:

The Caloric Theory
The caloric theory posited that heat was a fluid-like substance, called
"caloric", that flowed from hot objects to cold ones. This theory was
widely accepted because it explained certain phenomena, such as the
transfer of heat and the expansion of gases when heated.

The Disproof
In 1798, Benjamin Thompson (Count Rumford) conducted a groundbreaking
experiment during the boring of cannons. He observed that enormous
amounts of heat were generated by friction, seemingly without any
depletion of a material "caloric" substance. His experiments
demonstrated that heat could be produced indefinitely by mechanical
work, challenging the idea that heat was a conserved fluid.

However, while Rumford's findings refuted the caloric theory, a
comprehensive alternative explanation—what we now understand as heat as
energy transfer and the kinetic theory of heat—was not yet fully developed.

The Transition Period
It wasn't until the mid-19th century, with the work of James Prescott
Joule, Hermann von Helmholtz, and others, that the modern thermodynamic
understanding of heat as a form of energy was established. Joule's
experiments in particular quantified the relationship between mechanical
work and heat, leading to the formulation of the first law of
thermodynamics (energy conservation).

Why This Matters
This case illustrates how science can enter a transitional phase where
an established theory is refuted, but a replacement theory has not yet
emerged. During such periods, scientific progress often relies on
accumulating experimental evidence and conceptual groundwork before a
new paradigm can be articulated. The disproof of caloric theory paved
the way for the modern understanding of energy, despite the temporary
gap in explanatory frameworks.

[Martin Harran]

[ snip for focus]

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
Christian de Duve put it this way: "Science is based on the working
hypothesis that things are naturally explainable. This may or may not be
true. But the only way to find out is to make every possible effort to
explain things naturally. Only if one fails - assuming failure can ever
be definitely established - would be entitled to state that what one is
studying is not naturally explainable."
That seems close what to what I'm proposing. Thoughts?

First of all, I note that you left out the first sentence in that
quote - "Intelligent design is simply not a scientific theory" !
I'm not conversant with de Duve's ideas but I don't see him suggesting
that you can just jump from "not naturally explainable" to "Goddidit"
which is what you are trying to do. There are many possible reasons
why we might not be able explain something in natural ways - limits on
human intellectual competence is just one, lack of tools and equipment
is another. There is, of course, always the possibility that God did
indeed do it but if you are going to make a case for that, you have to
be able to offer some ideas about how or why he did it that way and
the strength of your argument will be directly proportional to how
tentative or how strong your ideas are. You are offering nothing so
that means your argument is worth nothing.

No, wrong. Demonstrating an existing theory to be false has no
requirement to provide and demonstrate a viable alternative*.

In regard to demonstrating a theory to be false, you haven't done
that, all you have done is identify areas that have not been
explained, at least not yet. There is nothing at all unusual about
that in science. Darwin's ToE was initially unable to explain how
traits and characteristics got passed on between generations; it took
Mendel to do that. In making his claims about heliocentrism, Galileo
was unable to explain tides and stellar parallax, it took a couple of
centuries to sort all that out. In neither case were the claims false.

You seem incapable or unwilling to grasp that *unexplained* does not
equate to *wrong*.

In regard to a viable alternative, you have put an alternative forward
- supernatural causes - but you have provided nothing whatsoever to
support its viability. Again, you seem incapable or unwilling to grasp
that even if A is wrong,that does not automatically mean that B is
right, that B needs to stand on its own grounds. That is the
fundamental flaw in ID which is what you constantly mimic.

Post by MarkE
Your arbitrary requirement that I "offer some ideas about how or why
[God] did it that way" or else I am "offering nothing so that means your
argument is worth nothing" says something about where you're coming from.
-----
The Caloric Theory
The caloric theory posited that heat was a fluid-like substance, called
"caloric", that flowed from hot objects to cold ones. This theory was
widely accepted because it explained certain phenomena, such as the
transfer of heat and the expansion of gases when heated.
The Disproof
In 1798, Benjamin Thompson (Count Rumford) conducted a groundbreaking
experiment during the boring of cannons. He observed that enormous
amounts of heat were generated by friction, seemingly without any
depletion of a material "caloric" substance. His experiments
demonstrated that heat could be produced indefinitely by mechanical
work, challenging the idea that heat was a conserved fluid.
However, while Rumford's findings refuted the caloric theory, a
comprehensive alternative explanation-what we now understand as heat as
energy transfer and the kinetic theory of heat-was not yet fully developed.

So what experiments have taken place that show OOL not to be due to
natural causes?

Note: [probability argument] !=experimentation.

Post by MarkE
The Transition Period
It wasn't until the mid-19th century, with the work of James Prescott
Joule, Hermann von Helmholtz, and others, that the modern thermodynamic
understanding of heat as a form of energy was established. Joule's
experiments in particular quantified the relationship between mechanical
work and heat, leading to the formulation of the first law of
thermodynamics (energy conservation).
Why This Matters
This case illustrates how science can enter a transitional phase where
an established theory is refuted,

I stand open to correction but I don't see anyone claiming that
current ideas on OOL are at the *established theory*; as far as I can
see, they are just possible natural explanations yet to be proven.

Post by MarkE
but a replacement theory has not yet
emerged. During such periods, scientific progress often relies on
accumulating experimental evidence and conceptual groundwork before a
new paradigm can be articulated.

So what experimental evidence and conceptual groundwork are you
offering regarding your supernatural causes paradigm?

Post by MarkE
The disproof of caloric theory paved
the way for the modern understanding of energy, despite the temporary
gap in explanatory frameworks.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 08:43:30 +0000, Martin Harran

... I don't see anyone claiming that
current ideas on OOL are at the *established theory*

Should be the *... at the "established theory* stage".

[MarkE]

Post by Martin Harran
[ snip for focus]

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
Christian de Duve put it this way: "Science is based on the working
hypothesis that things are naturally explainable. This may or may not be
true. But the only way to find out is to make every possible effort to
explain things naturally. Only if one fails - assuming failure can ever
be definitely established - would be entitled to state that what one is
studying is not naturally explainable."
That seems close what to what I'm proposing. Thoughts?

First of all, I note that you left out the first sentence in that
quote - "Intelligent design is simply not a scientific theory" !
I'm not conversant with de Duve's ideas but I don't see him suggesting
that you can just jump from "not naturally explainable" to "Goddidit"
which is what you are trying to do. There are many possible reasons
why we might not be able explain something in natural ways - limits on
human intellectual competence is just one, lack of tools and equipment
is another. There is, of course, always the possibility that God did
indeed do it but if you are going to make a case for that, you have to
be able to offer some ideas about how or why he did it that way and
the strength of your argument will be directly proportional to how
tentative or how strong your ideas are. You are offering nothing so
that means your argument is worth nothing.

No, wrong. Demonstrating an existing theory to be false has no
requirement to provide and demonstrate a viable alternative*.

In regard to demonstrating a theory to be false, you haven't done
that, all you have done is identify areas that have not been
explained, at least not yet. There is nothing at all unusual about
that in science. Darwin's ToE was initially unable to explain how
traits and characteristics got passed on between generations; it took
Mendel to do that. In making his claims about heliocentrism, Galileo
was unable to explain tides and stellar parallax, it took a couple of
centuries to sort all that out. In neither case were the claims false.
You seem incapable or unwilling to grasp that *unexplained* does not
equate to *wrong*.
In regard to a viable alternative, you have put an alternative forward
- supernatural causes - but you have provided nothing whatsoever to
support its viability. Again, you seem incapable or unwilling to grasp
that even if A is wrong,that does not automatically mean that B is
right, that B needs to stand on its own grounds. That is the
fundamental flaw in ID which is what you constantly mimic.

Not playing tit-for-tat, but I return a similar criticism: you seem
incapable or unwilling to grasp or maintain a coherent focus on the
content, logic and qualifications of my argument.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
Your arbitrary requirement that I "offer some ideas about how or why
[God] did it that way" or else I am "offering nothing so that means your
argument is worth nothing" says something about where you're coming from.
-----
The Caloric Theory
The caloric theory posited that heat was a fluid-like substance, called
"caloric", that flowed from hot objects to cold ones. This theory was
widely accepted because it explained certain phenomena, such as the
transfer of heat and the expansion of gases when heated.
The Disproof
In 1798, Benjamin Thompson (Count Rumford) conducted a groundbreaking
experiment during the boring of cannons. He observed that enormous
amounts of heat were generated by friction, seemingly without any
depletion of a material "caloric" substance. His experiments
demonstrated that heat could be produced indefinitely by mechanical
work, challenging the idea that heat was a conserved fluid.
However, while Rumford's findings refuted the caloric theory, a
comprehensive alternative explanation-what we now understand as heat as
energy transfer and the kinetic theory of heat-was not yet fully developed.

So what experiments have taken place that show OOL not to be due to
natural causes?
Note: [probability argument] !=experimentation.

Post by MarkE
The Transition Period
It wasn't until the mid-19th century, with the work of James Prescott
Joule, Hermann von Helmholtz, and others, that the modern thermodynamic
understanding of heat as a form of energy was established. Joule's
experiments in particular quantified the relationship between mechanical
work and heat, leading to the formulation of the first law of
thermodynamics (energy conservation).
Why This Matters
This case illustrates how science can enter a transitional phase where
an established theory is refuted,

I stand open to correction but I don't see anyone claiming that
current ideas on OOL are at the *established theory*; as far as I can
see, they are just possible natural explanations yet to be proven.

Post by MarkE
but a replacement theory has not yet
emerged. During such periods, scientific progress often relies on
accumulating experimental evidence and conceptual groundwork before a
new paradigm can be articulated.

So what experimental evidence and conceptual groundwork are you
offering regarding your supernatural causes paradigm?

Post by MarkE
The disproof of caloric theory paved
the way for the modern understanding of energy, despite the temporary
gap in explanatory frameworks.

[Martin Harran]

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
[ snip for focus]

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
Christian de Duve put it this way: "Science is based on the working
hypothesis that things are naturally explainable. This may or may not be
true. But the only way to find out is to make every possible effort to
explain things naturally. Only if one fails - assuming failure can ever
be definitely established - would be entitled to state that what one is
studying is not naturally explainable."
That seems close what to what I'm proposing. Thoughts?

First of all, I note that you left out the first sentence in that
quote - "Intelligent design is simply not a scientific theory" !
I'm not conversant with de Duve's ideas but I don't see him suggesting
that you can just jump from "not naturally explainable" to "Goddidit"
which is what you are trying to do. There are many possible reasons
why we might not be able explain something in natural ways - limits on
human intellectual competence is just one, lack of tools and equipment
is another. There is, of course, always the possibility that God did
indeed do it but if you are going to make a case for that, you have to
be able to offer some ideas about how or why he did it that way and
the strength of your argument will be directly proportional to how
tentative or how strong your ideas are. You are offering nothing so
that means your argument is worth nothing.

No, wrong. Demonstrating an existing theory to be false has no
requirement to provide and demonstrate a viable alternative*.

In regard to demonstrating a theory to be false, you haven't done
that, all you have done is identify areas that have not been
explained, at least not yet. There is nothing at all unusual about
that in science. Darwin's ToE was initially unable to explain how
traits and characteristics got passed on between generations; it took
Mendel to do that. In making his claims about heliocentrism, Galileo
was unable to explain tides and stellar parallax, it took a couple of
centuries to sort all that out. In neither case were the claims false.
You seem incapable or unwilling to grasp that *unexplained* does not
equate to *wrong*.
In regard to a viable alternative, you have put an alternative forward
- supernatural causes - but you have provided nothing whatsoever to
support its viability. Again, you seem incapable or unwilling to grasp
that even if A is wrong,that does not automatically mean that B is
right, that B needs to stand on its own grounds. That is the
fundamental flaw in ID which is what you constantly mimic.

Not playing tit-for-tat, but I return a similar criticism: you seem
incapable or unwilling to grasp or maintain a coherent focus on the
content, logic and qualifications of my argument.

Content: OOL is too complicated and too many unexplained gaps to be
due to natural processes.

Logic: because of that complexity and those gaps, ideas and
explanations based on natural processes must be wrong - therefore OOL
must have been due to supernatural causes.

Have I missed anything in those two parts?

I'm not sure what qualifications you mean, I may have missed them.

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
Your arbitrary requirement that I "offer some ideas about how or why
[God] did it that way" or else I am "offering nothing so that means your
argument is worth nothing" says something about where you're coming from.
-----
The Caloric Theory
The caloric theory posited that heat was a fluid-like substance, called
"caloric", that flowed from hot objects to cold ones. This theory was
widely accepted because it explained certain phenomena, such as the
transfer of heat and the expansion of gases when heated.
The Disproof
In 1798, Benjamin Thompson (Count Rumford) conducted a groundbreaking
experiment during the boring of cannons. He observed that enormous
amounts of heat were generated by friction, seemingly without any
depletion of a material "caloric" substance. His experiments
demonstrated that heat could be produced indefinitely by mechanical
work, challenging the idea that heat was a conserved fluid.
However, while Rumford's findings refuted the caloric theory, a
comprehensive alternative explanation-what we now understand as heat as
energy transfer and the kinetic theory of heat-was not yet fully developed.

So what experiments have taken place that show OOL not to be due to
natural causes?
Note: [probability argument] !=experimentation.

Post by MarkE
The Transition Period
It wasn't until the mid-19th century, with the work of James Prescott
Joule, Hermann von Helmholtz, and others, that the modern thermodynamic
understanding of heat as a form of energy was established. Joule's
experiments in particular quantified the relationship between mechanical
work and heat, leading to the formulation of the first law of
thermodynamics (energy conservation).
Why This Matters
This case illustrates how science can enter a transitional phase where
an established theory is refuted,

I stand open to correction but I don't see anyone claiming that
current ideas on OOL are at the *established theory*; as far as I can
see, they are just possible natural explanations yet to be proven.

Post by MarkE
but a replacement theory has not yet
emerged. During such periods, scientific progress often relies on
accumulating experimental evidence and conceptual groundwork before a
new paradigm can be articulated.

So what experimental evidence and conceptual groundwork are you
offering regarding your supernatural causes paradigm?

Post by MarkE
The disproof of caloric theory paved
the way for the modern understanding of energy, despite the temporary
gap in explanatory frameworks.

[MarkE]

On 16/12/2024 1:53 am, Martin Harran wrote:

<snip>

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
No, wrong. Demonstrating an existing theory to be false has no
requirement to provide and demonstrate a viable alternative*.

In regard to demonstrating a theory to be false, you haven't done
that, all you have done is identify areas that have not been
explained, at least not yet. There is nothing at all unusual about
that in science. Darwin's ToE was initially unable to explain how
traits and characteristics got passed on between generations; it took
Mendel to do that. In making his claims about heliocentrism, Galileo
was unable to explain tides and stellar parallax, it took a couple of
centuries to sort all that out. In neither case were the claims false.
You seem incapable or unwilling to grasp that *unexplained* does not
equate to *wrong*.
In regard to a viable alternative, you have put an alternative forward
- supernatural causes - but you have provided nothing whatsoever to
support its viability. Again, you seem incapable or unwilling to grasp
that even if A is wrong,that does not automatically mean that B is
right, that B needs to stand on its own grounds. That is the
fundamental flaw in ID which is what you constantly mimic.

Not playing tit-for-tat, but I return a similar criticism: you seem
incapable or unwilling to grasp or maintain a coherent focus on the
content, logic and qualifications of my argument.

Content: OOL is too complicated and too many unexplained gaps to be
due to natural processes.

I've been putting forward problems that have been described as a paradox
(e.g. tar), or that I'm suggesting may have P = 0 (e.g. warm little pond
continuous operation over millions of years). That is, I'm looking at
potential showstoppers, no just "too complicated" or "too many
unexplained gaps". At the same time noting that there is a degree of
subjectivity and overlap in these categorisations. And of course, in
each case supporting evidence is needed.

Post by Martin Harran
Logic: because of that complexity and those gaps, ideas and
explanations based on natural processes must be wrong - therefore OOL
must have been due to supernatural causes.
Have I missed anything in those two parts?
I'm not sure what qualifications you mean, I may have missed them.

A key qualification is my option 1 and 2 proposal, which is much more
nuanced than your summary.

That said, I do appreciate your engagement with these ideas and your
willingness to concede the point below. And I may need to more carefully
consider some of the objections raised by yourself and others (what
would you suggest they might be?).

To recap some points:

- If the tar paradox is connected with configurational entropy, then
that is potentially a hard stop

- If the first protocell must have a warm little pond or connected ponds
supplying concentrated activated canonical nucleotides continuously for
millions of years, this may arguably be a geological impossibility

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
Your arbitrary requirement that I "offer some ideas about how or why
[God] did it that way" or else I am "offering nothing so that means your
argument is worth nothing" says something about where you're coming from.
-----
The Caloric Theory
The caloric theory posited that heat was a fluid-like substance, called
"caloric", that flowed from hot objects to cold ones. This theory was
widely accepted because it explained certain phenomena, such as the
transfer of heat and the expansion of gases when heated.
The Disproof
In 1798, Benjamin Thompson (Count Rumford) conducted a groundbreaking
experiment during the boring of cannons. He observed that enormous
amounts of heat were generated by friction, seemingly without any
depletion of a material "caloric" substance. His experiments
demonstrated that heat could be produced indefinitely by mechanical
work, challenging the idea that heat was a conserved fluid.
However, while Rumford's findings refuted the caloric theory, a
comprehensive alternative explanation-what we now understand as heat as
energy transfer and the kinetic theory of heat-was not yet fully developed.

So what experiments have taken place that show OOL not to be due to
natural causes?
Note: [probability argument] !=experimentation.

Post by MarkE
The Transition Period
It wasn't until the mid-19th century, with the work of James Prescott
Joule, Hermann von Helmholtz, and others, that the modern thermodynamic
understanding of heat as a form of energy was established. Joule's
experiments in particular quantified the relationship between mechanical
work and heat, leading to the formulation of the first law of
thermodynamics (energy conservation).
Why This Matters
This case illustrates how science can enter a transitional phase where
an established theory is refuted,

I stand open to correction but I don't see anyone claiming that
current ideas on OOL are at the *established theory*; as far as I can
see, they are just possible natural explanations yet to be proven.

Post by MarkE
but a replacement theory has not yet
emerged. During such periods, scientific progress often relies on
accumulating experimental evidence and conceptual groundwork before a
new paradigm can be articulated.

So what experimental evidence and conceptual groundwork are you
offering regarding your supernatural causes paradigm?

Post by MarkE
The disproof of caloric theory paved
the way for the modern understanding of energy, despite the temporary
gap in explanatory frameworks.

[Mark Isaak]

Post by MarkE
<snip>

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
Not playing tit-for-tat, but I return a similar criticism: you seem
incapable or unwilling to grasp or maintain a coherent focus on the
content, logic and qualifications of my argument.

Content: OOL is too complicated and too many unexplained gaps to be
due to natural processes.

I've been putting forward problems that have been described as a paradox
(e.g. tar), or that I'm suggesting may have P = 0 (e.g. warm little pond
continuous operation over millions of years). That is, I'm looking at
potential showstoppers, no just "too complicated" or "too many
unexplained gaps". At the same time noting that there is a degree of
subjectivity and overlap in these categorisations. And of course, in
each case supporting evidence is needed.

Lord Kelvin once put forward a problem that showed, with more logical
soundness and scientific basis than your posts, that the earth could not
be hundreds of millions of years old. And yet it is. Kelvin did not know
about a feature of the natural world that invalidated his "problems".

What makes you think that you know enough about the universe to think
that the problems you put forward will not likewise be obviated by
further research?

[MarkE]

Post by Mark Isaak
What makes you think that you know enough about the universe to think
that the problems you put forward will not likewise be obviated by
further research?

I don't, not with certainty. Hence I put forward possible OoL
showstoppers for scrutiny.

To that end, do you think the following recent examples have any merit
at all? I'm not asking if you agree that they're a problem, rather, is
there any legitimacy in addressing them as potentional problems for OoL?
- the tar paradox
- supply of concentrated nucleotides unbroken for millions of years

[Mark Isaak]

Post by MarkE

Post by Mark Isaak
What makes you think that you know enough about the universe to think
that the problems you put forward will not likewise be obviated by
further research?

I don't, not with certainty. Hence I put forward possible OoL
showstoppers for scrutiny.
To that end, do you think the following recent examples have any merit
at all? I'm not asking if you agree that they're a problem, rather, is
there any legitimacy in addressing them as potentional problems for OoL?
- the tar paradox

Probably not a problem. It's easy to imagine mechanisms that could
separate productive products from counterproductive ones.

Post by MarkE
- supply of concentrated nucleotides unbroken for millions of years

A problem, yes, but only in the sense that solving any puzzle is a
problem. A showstarter (where research is the show), not a showstopper.
Also, millions of years may be unnecessary. I suspect that one
bottleneck of abiogenesis is for the proper conditions to come together,
but once they do, a huge step could be taken in months, perhaps hours. I
might be completely wrong about that, but then, others might be wrong
about thinking optimum conditions must persist for millions of years.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:16:06 -0800, Mark Isaak

Post by Mark Isaak

Post by MarkE

Post by Mark Isaak
What makes you think that you know enough about the universe to think
that the problems you put forward will not likewise be obviated by
further research?

I don't, not with certainty. Hence I put forward possible OoL
showstoppers for scrutiny.
To that end, do you think the following recent examples have any merit
at all? I'm not asking if you agree that they're a problem, rather, is
there any legitimacy in addressing them as potentional problems for OoL?
- the tar paradox

Probably not a problem. It's easy to imagine mechanisms that could
separate productive products from counterproductive ones.

Post by MarkE
- supply of concentrated nucleotides unbroken for millions of years

A problem, yes, but only in the sense that solving any puzzle is a
problem. A showstarter (where research is the show), not a showstopper.
Also, millions of years may be unnecessary. I suspect that one
bottleneck of abiogenesis is for the proper conditions to come together,
but once they do, a huge step could be taken in months, perhaps hours. I
might be completely wrong about that, but then, others might be wrong
about thinking optimum conditions must persist for millions of years.

I agree and I think that is very similar to PE. One of the mistakes
that people like Ron Dean make about PE is that they think positive
characteristics must be availed of as soon as they arise.
Characteristics that have no particular advantage right now may be
retained if they aren't costing much to retain and there are no
negative effects. A change in environment could suddenly make one or
several of those characteristics advantageous and they come to the
fore either individually or collectively; they do not have to provide
advantage in some carefully orchestrated sequence.

[MarkE]

Post by Mark Isaak

Post by MarkE

Post by Mark Isaak
What makes you think that you know enough about the universe to think
that the problems you put forward will not likewise be obviated by
further research?

I don't, not with certainty. Hence I put forward possible OoL
showstoppers for scrutiny.
To that end, do you think the following recent examples have any merit
at all? I'm not asking if you agree that they're a problem, rather, is
there any legitimacy in addressing them as potentional problems for OoL?
- the tar paradox

Probably not a problem. It's easy to imagine mechanisms that could
separate productive products from counterproductive ones.

Post by MarkE
- supply of concentrated nucleotides unbroken for millions of years

A problem, yes, but only in the sense that solving any puzzle is a
problem.  A showstarter (where research is the show), not a showstopper.
Also, millions of years may be unnecessary. I suspect that one
bottleneck of abiogenesis is for the proper conditions to come together,
but once they do, a huge step could be taken in months, perhaps hours. I
might be completely wrong about that, but then, others might be wrong
about thinking optimum conditions must persist for millions of years.

It is difficult to quantify this time.

An estimate of the minimal length of RNA required for self-replication
is 100 units:

"A true RNA replicase—a ribozyme capable of fully templating and
polymerizing its own sequence—has not yet been discovered. Models
suggest such a molecule would need to be at least ~100-200 nucleotides
to fold into a structure complex enough to catalyze replication."

The assembly of such a long, complex polymer in the conditions present
on the early earth is extremely difficult.

The problem is, it's not just the first naked RNA self-replicator (or
autocatalytic set of self-replicating polymers) that solves the problem.

You then need to progress to a "primitive" protocell, which provides
encapsulation. This is not capable of self-synthesis of activated
nucleotides, therefore the environment is required to continue to supply
these.

You then need to progress to an "advanced" protocell, which provides
metabolism, including self-synthesis of activated nucleotides. Only then
do you no longer require environmental life-support.

The combined probabilistic resources of X warm little ponds on Y planets
are not relevant if no such geological/environmental conditions can be
maintained for the time required. That needs to be demonstrated.

We could begin to gauge this experimentally by setting up simulated warm
little ponds with wet/dry cycles, a steady supply of nucleotides,
temerature variability, mechanical agitation, mineral substrates, pH
changes, other checmicals, etc etc, and observe the development of RNA
strands. I.e., something of an Miller-Urey experiment.

Wait...why has no-one done this? What better way to progress OoL
research? "Look, our little warm ponds have produced a population of
RNAs from 3 to 13 units long...this is the road to life!" The incentive
is certainly there - peer accolades and grant funding would flow in.

Well, I can tell you why no-one is doing this and reporting the
results*. Because we know that it will not produce growing RNA polymers.
It will yield tar.

-----

* Damer and Deamer:

“[OoL research has] been mainly focused on individual solution chemistry
experiments where they want to show polymerization over here, or they
want to show metabolism over here, and Dave and I believe that it's time
for the field to go from incremental progress to substantial progress.
So, these are the four points we've come up with to make substantial
progress in the origin of life, and the first one is to employ something
called system chemistry, having sufficient complexity so instead of one
experiment say about proteins, now you have an experiment about the
encapsulation of proteins for example, and informational molecules built
from nucleotides in an environment that would say be like an analog of
the early Earth, build a complex experiment. Something we're calling
sufficient complexity, and all of these experiments have to move the
reactions away from equilibrium. And what do we mean by that? Well, in
in your high school chemistry experiments, something starts foaming
something changes color and then the experiment winds down and stops.
Well, life didn't get started that way. Life got started by a continuous
run-up of complexity and building upon in a sense nature as a ratchet.
So we have to figure out how to build experiments that move will move
away from equilibrium...”

“You can't sit in a laboratory just using glassware. You have to go to
the field. You have to go to hot springs, you have to go to […] Iceland
and come check and sit down and see what the natural environment is
like, rather than being in the ethereal world of pure reactants and
things like that...”

Source: A new model for the origin of life: A new model for the origin
of life: Coupled phases and combinatorial selection in fluctuating
hydrothermal pools. http://youtu.be/nk_R55O24t4

[Mark Isaak]

Post by MarkE

Post by Mark Isaak

Post by MarkE

Post by Mark Isaak
What makes you think that you know enough about the universe to
think that the problems you put forward will not likewise be
obviated by further research?

I don't, not with certainty. Hence I put forward possible OoL
showstoppers for scrutiny.
To that end, do you think the following recent examples have any
merit at all? I'm not asking if you agree that they're a problem,
rather, is there any legitimacy in addressing them as potentional
problems for OoL?
- the tar paradox

Probably not a problem. It's easy to imagine mechanisms that could
separate productive products from counterproductive ones.

Post by MarkE
- supply of concentrated nucleotides unbroken for millions of years

A problem, yes, but only in the sense that solving any puzzle is a
problem.  A showstarter (where research is the show), not a
showstopper. Also, millions of years may be unnecessary. I suspect
that one bottleneck of abiogenesis is for the proper conditions to
come together, but once they do, a huge step could be taken in months,
perhaps hours. I might be completely wrong about that, but then,
others might be wrong about thinking optimum conditions must persist
for millions of years.

It is difficult to quantify this time.

That's the point.

Post by MarkE
An estimate of the minimal length of RNA required for self-replication
[...]

Which may not be relevant. The first replication might very well not be RNA.

[Martin Harran]

Post by MarkE
<snip>

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
No, wrong. Demonstrating an existing theory to be false has no
requirement to provide and demonstrate a viable alternative*.

In regard to demonstrating a theory to be false, you haven't done
that, all you have done is identify areas that have not been
explained, at least not yet. There is nothing at all unusual about
that in science. Darwin's ToE was initially unable to explain how
traits and characteristics got passed on between generations; it took
Mendel to do that. In making his claims about heliocentrism, Galileo
was unable to explain tides and stellar parallax, it took a couple of
centuries to sort all that out. In neither case were the claims false.
You seem incapable or unwilling to grasp that *unexplained* does not
equate to *wrong*.
In regard to a viable alternative, you have put an alternative forward
- supernatural causes - but you have provided nothing whatsoever to
support its viability. Again, you seem incapable or unwilling to grasp
that even if A is wrong,that does not automatically mean that B is
right, that B needs to stand on its own grounds. That is the
fundamental flaw in ID which is what you constantly mimic.

Not playing tit-for-tat, but I return a similar criticism: you seem
incapable or unwilling to grasp or maintain a coherent focus on the
content, logic and qualifications of my argument.

Content: OOL is too complicated and too many unexplained gaps to be
due to natural processes.

I've been putting forward problems that have been described as a paradox
(e.g. tar), or that I'm suggesting may have P = 0 (e.g. warm little pond
continuous operation over millions of years). That is, I'm looking at
potential showstoppers, no just "too complicated" or "too many
unexplained gaps". At the same time noting that there is a degree of
subjectivity and overlap in these categorisations. And of course, in
each case supporting evidence is needed.

OK, change my summary to:

"Content: OOL is too complicated, too improbable and too many
unexplained gaps to be due to natural processes."

Seems like a difference that makes no difference.

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
Logic: because of that complexity and those gaps, ideas and
explanations based on natural processes must be wrong - therefore OOL
must have been due to supernatural causes.
Have I missed anything in those two parts?
I'm not sure what qualifications you mean, I may have missed them.

A key qualification is my option 1 and 2 proposal, which is much more
nuanced than your summary.
That said, I do appreciate your engagement with these ideas and your
willingness to concede the point below. And I may need to more carefully
consider some of the objections raised by yourself and others (what
would you suggest they might be?).

My suggestions:

#1
Drop the probability arguments. Once something has happened, the
probability of it having happened is totally irrelevant. The odds of
anyone winning the Irish Lotto jackpot are one in 10.5 million. The
jackpot is likely to be worn sometime within the next few weeks;
whoever wins it, the 10.5 million to 1 odds of them having done so are
irrelevant.

#2
If you are talking about God, then talk about God; stop using weasel
words like "designer" and "supernatural causes". It just sounds as if
you don't have confidence in or are embarrassed talking about the God
you believe in.

#3
Stop trying to 'prove' your God hypothesis on the basis of gaps in the
potential pathways suggested by others; you have to show arguments
supporting your hypothesis in its own right.

#4
In regard to making your case to the science community, you need to
offer some kind of suggestion as to how God might have gone about
this; for example, you need to explain why he fiddled about with the
precursors to your first protocell.

#5
In regard to making your case to religious believers, you need to
offer some explanation of how you get from God fiddling about with
protocells to us having a relationship with him and him sending his
son to us.

That should be enough to be going on with!

Post by MarkE
- If the tar paradox is connected with configurational entropy, then
that is potentially a hard stop
- If the first protocell must have a warm little pond or connected ponds
supplying concentrated activated canonical nucleotides continuously for
millions of years, this may arguably be a geological impossibility

[...]

[erik simpson]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
<snip>

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
No, wrong. Demonstrating an existing theory to be false has no
requirement to provide and demonstrate a viable alternative*.

In regard to demonstrating a theory to be false, you haven't done
that, all you have done is identify areas that have not been
explained, at least not yet. There is nothing at all unusual about
that in science. Darwin's ToE was initially unable to explain how
traits and characteristics got passed on between generations; it took
Mendel to do that. In making his claims about heliocentrism, Galileo
was unable to explain tides and stellar parallax, it took a couple of
centuries to sort all that out. In neither case were the claims false.
You seem incapable or unwilling to grasp that *unexplained* does not
equate to *wrong*.
In regard to a viable alternative, you have put an alternative forward
- supernatural causes - but you have provided nothing whatsoever to
support its viability. Again, you seem incapable or unwilling to grasp
that even if A is wrong,that does not automatically mean that B is
right, that B needs to stand on its own grounds. That is the
fundamental flaw in ID which is what you constantly mimic.

Not playing tit-for-tat, but I return a similar criticism: you seem
incapable or unwilling to grasp or maintain a coherent focus on the
content, logic and qualifications of my argument.

Content: OOL is too complicated and too many unexplained gaps to be
due to natural processes.

I've been putting forward problems that have been described as a paradox
(e.g. tar), or that I'm suggesting may have P = 0 (e.g. warm little pond
continuous operation over millions of years). That is, I'm looking at
potential showstoppers, no just "too complicated" or "too many
unexplained gaps". At the same time noting that there is a degree of
subjectivity and overlap in these categorisations. And of course, in
each case supporting evidence is needed.

"Content: OOL is too complicated, too improbable and too many
unexplained gaps to be due to natural processes."
Seems like a difference that makes no difference.

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
Logic: because of that complexity and those gaps, ideas and
explanations based on natural processes must be wrong - therefore OOL
must have been due to supernatural causes.
Have I missed anything in those two parts?
I'm not sure what qualifications you mean, I may have missed them.

A key qualification is my option 1 and 2 proposal, which is much more
nuanced than your summary.
That said, I do appreciate your engagement with these ideas and your
willingness to concede the point below. And I may need to more carefully
consider some of the objections raised by yourself and others (what
would you suggest they might be?).

#1
Drop the probability arguments. Once something has happened, the
probability of it having happened is totally irrelevant. The odds of
anyone winning the Irish Lotto jackpot are one in 10.5 million. The
jackpot is likely to be worn sometime within the next few weeks;
whoever wins it, the 10.5 million to 1 odds of them having done so are
irrelevant.
#2
If you are talking about God, then talk about God; stop using weasel
words like "designer" and "supernatural causes". It just sounds as if
you don't have confidence in or are embarrassed talking about the God
you believe in.
#3
Stop trying to 'prove' your God hypothesis on the basis of gaps in the
potential pathways suggested by others; you have to show arguments
supporting your hypothesis in its own right.
#4
In regard to making your case to the science community, you need to
offer some kind of suggestion as to how God might have gone about
this; for example, you need to explain why he fiddled about with the
precursors to your first protocell.
#5
In regard to making your case to religious believers, you need to
offer some explanation of how you get from God fiddling about with
protocells to us having a relationship with him and him sending his
son to us.
That should be enough to be going on with!

Post by MarkE
- If the tar paradox is connected with configurational entropy, then
that is potentially a hard stop
- If the first protocell must have a warm little pond or connected ponds
supplying concentrated activated canonical nucleotides continuously for
millions of years, this may arguably be a geological impossibility

[...]

I hear that. "The designer" sounds like Nyikos' omnipotent alien
creator of life on earth.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 08:19:27 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
<snip>

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
No, wrong. Demonstrating an existing theory to be false has no
requirement to provide and demonstrate a viable alternative*.

In regard to demonstrating a theory to be false, you haven't done
that, all you have done is identify areas that have not been
explained, at least not yet. There is nothing at all unusual about
that in science. Darwin's ToE was initially unable to explain how
traits and characteristics got passed on between generations; it took
Mendel to do that. In making his claims about heliocentrism, Galileo
was unable to explain tides and stellar parallax, it took a couple of
centuries to sort all that out. In neither case were the claims false.
You seem incapable or unwilling to grasp that *unexplained* does not
equate to *wrong*.
In regard to a viable alternative, you have put an alternative forward
- supernatural causes - but you have provided nothing whatsoever to
support its viability. Again, you seem incapable or unwilling to grasp
that even if A is wrong,that does not automatically mean that B is
right, that B needs to stand on its own grounds. That is the
fundamental flaw in ID which is what you constantly mimic.

Not playing tit-for-tat, but I return a similar criticism: you seem
incapable or unwilling to grasp or maintain a coherent focus on the
content, logic and qualifications of my argument.

Content: OOL is too complicated and too many unexplained gaps to be
due to natural processes.

I've been putting forward problems that have been described as a paradox
(e.g. tar), or that I'm suggesting may have P = 0 (e.g. warm little pond
continuous operation over millions of years). That is, I'm looking at
potential showstoppers, no just "too complicated" or "too many
unexplained gaps". At the same time noting that there is a degree of
subjectivity and overlap in these categorisations. And of course, in
each case supporting evidence is needed.

"Content: OOL is too complicated, too improbable and too many
unexplained gaps to be due to natural processes."
Seems like a difference that makes no difference.

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
Logic: because of that complexity and those gaps, ideas and
explanations based on natural processes must be wrong - therefore OOL
must have been due to supernatural causes.
Have I missed anything in those two parts?
I'm not sure what qualifications you mean, I may have missed them.

A key qualification is my option 1 and 2 proposal, which is much more
nuanced than your summary.
That said, I do appreciate your engagement with these ideas and your
willingness to concede the point below. And I may need to more carefully
consider some of the objections raised by yourself and others (what
would you suggest they might be?).

#1
Drop the probability arguments. Once something has happened, the
probability of it having happened is totally irrelevant. The odds of
anyone winning the Irish Lotto jackpot are one in 10.5 million. The
jackpot is likely to be worn sometime within the next few weeks;
whoever wins it, the 10.5 million to 1 odds of them having done so are
irrelevant.
#2
If you are talking about God, then talk about God; stop using weasel
words like "designer" and "supernatural causes". It just sounds as if
you don't have confidence in or are embarrassed talking about the God
you believe in.
#3
Stop trying to 'prove' your God hypothesis on the basis of gaps in the
potential pathways suggested by others; you have to show arguments
supporting your hypothesis in its own right.
#4
In regard to making your case to the science community, you need to
offer some kind of suggestion as to how God might have gone about
this; for example, you need to explain why he fiddled about with the
precursors to your first protocell.
#5
In regard to making your case to religious believers, you need to
offer some explanation of how you get from God fiddling about with
protocells to us having a relationship with him and him sending his
son to us.
That should be enough to be going on with!

Post by MarkE
- If the tar paradox is connected with configurational entropy, then
that is potentially a hard stop
- If the first protocell must have a warm little pond or connected ponds
supplying concentrated activated canonical nucleotides continuously for
millions of years, this may arguably be a geological impossibility

[...]

I hear that. "The designer" sounds like Nyikos' omnipotent alien
creator of life on earth.

I don't always agree with RonO but he is 100% right when he points out
that finding evidence for a *designer* is the worst possible thing
that could happen to IDers and Creationists as it would completely
undermine the God that most of them believe in.

[MarkE]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
<snip>

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
No, wrong. Demonstrating an existing theory to be false has no
requirement to provide and demonstrate a viable alternative*.

In regard to demonstrating a theory to be false, you haven't done
that, all you have done is identify areas that have not been
explained, at least not yet. There is nothing at all unusual about
that in science. Darwin's ToE was initially unable to explain how
traits and characteristics got passed on between generations; it took
Mendel to do that. In making his claims about heliocentrism, Galileo
was unable to explain tides and stellar parallax, it took a couple of
centuries to sort all that out. In neither case were the claims false.
You seem incapable or unwilling to grasp that *unexplained* does not
equate to *wrong*.
In regard to a viable alternative, you have put an alternative forward
- supernatural causes - but you have provided nothing whatsoever to
support its viability. Again, you seem incapable or unwilling to grasp
that even if A is wrong,that does not automatically mean that B is
right, that B needs to stand on its own grounds. That is the
fundamental flaw in ID which is what you constantly mimic.

Not playing tit-for-tat, but I return a similar criticism: you seem
incapable or unwilling to grasp or maintain a coherent focus on the
content, logic and qualifications of my argument.

Content: OOL is too complicated and too many unexplained gaps to be
due to natural processes.

I've been putting forward problems that have been described as a paradox
(e.g. tar), or that I'm suggesting may have P = 0 (e.g. warm little pond
continuous operation over millions of years). That is, I'm looking at
potential showstoppers, no just "too complicated" or "too many
unexplained gaps". At the same time noting that there is a degree of
subjectivity and overlap in these categorisations. And of course, in
each case supporting evidence is needed.

"Content: OOL is too complicated, too improbable and too many
unexplained gaps to be due to natural processes."
Seems like a difference that makes no difference.

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
Logic: because of that complexity and those gaps, ideas and
explanations based on natural processes must be wrong - therefore OOL
must have been due to supernatural causes.
Have I missed anything in those two parts?
I'm not sure what qualifications you mean, I may have missed them.

A key qualification is my option 1 and 2 proposal, which is much more
nuanced than your summary.
That said, I do appreciate your engagement with these ideas and your
willingness to concede the point below. And I may need to more carefully
consider some of the objections raised by yourself and others (what
would you suggest they might be?).

#1
Drop the probability arguments. Once something has happened, the
probability of it having happened is totally irrelevant. The odds of
anyone winning the Irish Lotto jackpot are one in 10.5 million. The
jackpot is likely to be worn sometime within the next few weeks;
whoever wins it, the 10.5 million to 1 odds of them having done so are
irrelevant.

When you say, "Once something has happened", I assume you're applying
this to life happening. It goes without saying that life happened, and
assuming you're not stating the obvious, I deduce you're saying that
life happened in a particular way - i.e. by naturalistic means, as a
given. Could you clarify your point?

Regardless, at the core of the origins question is probability. For
example, Dawkins book title "Climbing Mount Improbable" demonstrates
precisely this. Why was it written? To address a legitimate question - a
question of probability.

I'm interested to hear your response to this before addressing your
other suggestions.

Post by Martin Harran
#2
If you are talking about God, then talk about God; stop using weasel
words like "designer" and "supernatural causes". It just sounds as if
you don't have confidence in or are embarrassed talking about the God
you believe in.
#3
Stop trying to 'prove' your God hypothesis on the basis of gaps in the
potential pathways suggested by others; you have to show arguments
supporting your hypothesis in its own right.
#4
In regard to making your case to the science community, you need to
offer some kind of suggestion as to how God might have gone about
this; for example, you need to explain why he fiddled about with the
precursors to your first protocell.
#5
In regard to making your case to religious believers, you need to
offer some explanation of how you get from God fiddling about with
protocells to us having a relationship with him and him sending his
son to us.
That should be enough to be going on with!

Post by MarkE
- If the tar paradox is connected with configurational entropy, then
that is potentially a hard stop
- If the first protocell must have a warm little pond or connected ponds
supplying concentrated activated canonical nucleotides continuously for
millions of years, this may arguably be a geological impossibility

[...]

[Martin Harran]

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
<snip>

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
No, wrong. Demonstrating an existing theory to be false has no
requirement to provide and demonstrate a viable alternative*.

In regard to demonstrating a theory to be false, you haven't done
that, all you have done is identify areas that have not been
explained, at least not yet. There is nothing at all unusual about
that in science. Darwin's ToE was initially unable to explain how
traits and characteristics got passed on between generations; it took
Mendel to do that. In making his claims about heliocentrism, Galileo
was unable to explain tides and stellar parallax, it took a couple of
centuries to sort all that out. In neither case were the claims false.
You seem incapable or unwilling to grasp that *unexplained* does not
equate to *wrong*.
In regard to a viable alternative, you have put an alternative forward
- supernatural causes - but you have provided nothing whatsoever to
support its viability. Again, you seem incapable or unwilling to grasp
that even if A is wrong,that does not automatically mean that B is
right, that B needs to stand on its own grounds. That is the
fundamental flaw in ID which is what you constantly mimic.

Not playing tit-for-tat, but I return a similar criticism: you seem
incapable or unwilling to grasp or maintain a coherent focus on the
content, logic and qualifications of my argument.

Content: OOL is too complicated and too many unexplained gaps to be
due to natural processes.

I've been putting forward problems that have been described as a paradox
(e.g. tar), or that I'm suggesting may have P = 0 (e.g. warm little pond
continuous operation over millions of years). That is, I'm looking at
potential showstoppers, no just "too complicated" or "too many
unexplained gaps". At the same time noting that there is a degree of
subjectivity and overlap in these categorisations. And of course, in
each case supporting evidence is needed.

"Content: OOL is too complicated, too improbable and too many
unexplained gaps to be due to natural processes."
Seems like a difference that makes no difference.

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
Logic: because of that complexity and those gaps, ideas and
explanations based on natural processes must be wrong - therefore OOL
must have been due to supernatural causes.
Have I missed anything in those two parts?
I'm not sure what qualifications you mean, I may have missed them.

A key qualification is my option 1 and 2 proposal, which is much more
nuanced than your summary.
That said, I do appreciate your engagement with these ideas and your
willingness to concede the point below. And I may need to more carefully
consider some of the objections raised by yourself and others (what
would you suggest they might be?).

#1
Drop the probability arguments. Once something has happened, the
probability of it having happened is totally irrelevant. The odds of
anyone winning the Irish Lotto jackpot are one in 10.5 million. The
jackpot is likely to be worn sometime within the next few weeks;
whoever wins it, the 10.5 million to 1 odds of them having done so are
irrelevant.

When you say, "Once something has happened", I assume you're applying
this to life happening. It goes without saying that life happened, and
assuming you're not stating the obvious, I deduce you're saying that
life happened in a particular way - i.e. by naturalistic means, as a
given. Could you clarify your point?

All sorts of problems with using probability in regard to OOL (and the
fine tuning argument in general). The problems have been hammered to
death many but here is my own overview on them.

First of all, take the simple example I gave of the Irish Lotto. Let's
say Patrick Murphy wins the jackpot this week. Your argument is
essentially the same as somebody who knows him saying "Patrick is not
a particularly clever guy, with odds of over 10 million to one, he
couldn't possibly have won it on his own, he must have had some kind
of help - or maybe he's clairvoyant!

You may argue back that those odds are quite low compared to the odds
involved in some of your OOL calculations so let's imagine he goes on
to win next week as well. That's now odds of over 110 million to one
so your suspicions would be well and truly raised about something
untoward going on. Let's say he wins it a third weeks in a row; that's
odds of over a billion to one so according to your logic, that was
impossible, there definitely had to be some sort of intervention.

The first thing you are missing is that once Patrick has won the first
week, is odds of winning a second consecutive week are the exact same
odds as anyone else entering that week. Once he has won two weeks in a
row, his odds of winning a third consecutive week are the exact same
odds as anyone else entering that week.

The second thing you are missing is that the natural development is
not just random events. There is an underlying principle in nature
that things that offer an advantage tend to endure; things that are
disadvantageous tend not to endure. We see that particularly well
demonstrated in biological evolution with the Natural Selection
process, but it applies to other processes as well -trial and error is
a common feature of the design process of which you are so fond with
idea and processes that don't work out being discarded and ones that
do work out being retained and built upon. There is no reason not to
apply the same principle to the processes that led to OOL.

The third thing you get wrong, and arguably the most important one, is
that you assume there is something improbably unique about a
particular outcome. Let's use the usual example of dealing cards. If
you deal out a full pack of cards into 4 hands, the odds of each hand
getting 13 cards of one suit in sequence with the first hand getting
hearts, the second getting spades, the third getting diamonds, the
fourth getting clubs are approximately 8e67 to one - that's 8 followed
by 67 zeros. If you dealt that hand of cards at a bridge competition,
there would be uproar, all the competitors would come to your table to
see the hands, you'd likely get your photo and a write up in your
local newspaper. The thing about it is that there is nothing
inherently exceptional about that hand, It had the exact same chance
of being dealt as any other deal of 52 cards into 4 hands; every time
someone deals a bridge hand they are creating a result where the odds
were 8e67 to one. The only reason it looks so exceptional is that that
humans have chosen to regard it as special. The same applies to OOL;
the only reason OOL as we have experienced it looks exceptional is
because we have chosen to regard it as special. There is no reason to
think that if different processes had taken place, that some other
life form would not have developed.

Post by MarkE
Regardless, at the core of the origins question is probability. For
example, Dawkins book title "Climbing Mount Improbable" demonstrates
precisely this. Why was it written? To address a legitimate question - a
question of probability.

It's a long time since I read "Climbing Mount Improbable so I'm not
sure in what context Dakins used probability but I'd be absolutely
certain that it wasn't to support the idea of divine intervention!

Post by MarkE
I'm interested to hear your response to this before addressing your
other suggestions.

I did make 5 suggestions with probability possibly the least important
so I'd certainly like to hear your response to the others.

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
#2
If you are talking about God, then talk about God; stop using weasel
words like "designer" and "supernatural causes". It just sounds as if
you don't have confidence in or are embarrassed talking about the God
you believe in.
#3
Stop trying to 'prove' your God hypothesis on the basis of gaps in the
potential pathways suggested by others; you have to show arguments
supporting your hypothesis in its own right.
#4
In regard to making your case to the science community, you need to
offer some kind of suggestion as to how God might have gone about
this; for example, you need to explain why he fiddled about with the
precursors to your first protocell.
#5
In regard to making your case to religious believers, you need to
offer some explanation of how you get from God fiddling about with
protocells to us having a relationship with him and him sending his
son to us.
That should be enough to be going on with!

Post by MarkE
- If the tar paradox is connected with configurational entropy, then
that is potentially a hard stop
- If the first protocell must have a warm little pond or connected ponds
supplying concentrated activated canonical nucleotides continuously for
millions of years, this may arguably be a geological impossibility

[...]

[Martin Harran]

I didn't want to include this in my main response as it's a secondary
issue, a personal viewpoint which could be diversionary from the main
arguments here.

Unlike those arguing from a purely scientific perspective, I believe
there is an underlying teleological element to OOL and evolution.
Unlike you, however, I don't think it involves God fiddling with
things like the precursors to your first protocell; I believe it is a
force that encourages natural processes to bring life into existence
and evolve it to the level of human awareness that we have now (a big
nod to Teilhard de Chardin).

I like to think of think of the teleological drive as an external
force acting in a similar way to gravity acting on a river, causing it
to ever flow downwards towards the sea. Gravity does not determine the
specific course of the river, the water simply responds to the terrain
that it meets I think it is the same with biological life which may
appear to evolve in a random way but it's not just random; it is life
driven in a general direction and just responding to the environment
it meets on the way, no need for a designer planning or directing its
course.
.

[Ernest Major]

Post by Martin Harran
It's a long time since I read "Climbing Mount Improbable so I'm not
sure in what context Dakins used probability but I'd be absolutely
certain that it wasn't to support the idea of divine intervention!

I don't recall the content of "Climbing Mount Improbable" - I found it
one of Dawkins' more forgettable books - but I'm pretty certain it was
about the capability of variation and selection to achieve complex
organised systems through sequences of small changes.

[jillery]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 17:17:38 +0000, Ernest Major

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Martin Harran
It's a long time since I read "Climbing Mount Improbable so I'm not
sure in what context Dakins used probability but I'd be absolutely
certain that it wasn't to support the idea of divine intervention!

I don't recall the content of "Climbing Mount Improbable" - I found it
one of Dawkins' more forgettable books - but I'm pretty certain it was
about the capability of variation and selection to achieve complex
organised systems through sequences of small changes.

"Climbing Mount Improbable" was Dawkins' effort to describe a
complicated scientific topic (evolutionary probability) to a general
non-science audience, to explain how some features are likely to
evolve while others are less so. Perhaps the language he used to
reach his intended audience made it "forgettable" to those more expert
in the field.

[MarkE]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
<snip>

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
No, wrong. Demonstrating an existing theory to be false has no
requirement to provide and demonstrate a viable alternative*.

In regard to demonstrating a theory to be false, you haven't done
that, all you have done is identify areas that have not been
explained, at least not yet. There is nothing at all unusual about
that in science. Darwin's ToE was initially unable to explain how
traits and characteristics got passed on between generations; it took
Mendel to do that. In making his claims about heliocentrism, Galileo
was unable to explain tides and stellar parallax, it took a couple of
centuries to sort all that out. In neither case were the claims false.
You seem incapable or unwilling to grasp that *unexplained* does not
equate to *wrong*.
In regard to a viable alternative, you have put an alternative forward
- supernatural causes - but you have provided nothing whatsoever to
support its viability. Again, you seem incapable or unwilling to grasp
that even if A is wrong,that does not automatically mean that B is
right, that B needs to stand on its own grounds. That is the
fundamental flaw in ID which is what you constantly mimic.

Not playing tit-for-tat, but I return a similar criticism: you seem
incapable or unwilling to grasp or maintain a coherent focus on the
content, logic and qualifications of my argument.

Content: OOL is too complicated and too many unexplained gaps to be
due to natural processes.

I've been putting forward problems that have been described as a paradox
(e.g. tar), or that I'm suggesting may have P = 0 (e.g. warm little pond
continuous operation over millions of years). That is, I'm looking at
potential showstoppers, no just "too complicated" or "too many
unexplained gaps". At the same time noting that there is a degree of
subjectivity and overlap in these categorisations. And of course, in
each case supporting evidence is needed.

"Content: OOL is too complicated, too improbable and too many
unexplained gaps to be due to natural processes."
Seems like a difference that makes no difference.

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
Logic: because of that complexity and those gaps, ideas and
explanations based on natural processes must be wrong - therefore OOL
must have been due to supernatural causes.
Have I missed anything in those two parts?
I'm not sure what qualifications you mean, I may have missed them.

A key qualification is my option 1 and 2 proposal, which is much more
nuanced than your summary.
That said, I do appreciate your engagement with these ideas and your
willingness to concede the point below. And I may need to more carefully
consider some of the objections raised by yourself and others (what
would you suggest they might be?).

#1
Drop the probability arguments. Once something has happened, the
probability of it having happened is totally irrelevant. The odds of
anyone winning the Irish Lotto jackpot are one in 10.5 million. The
jackpot is likely to be worn sometime within the next few weeks;
whoever wins it, the 10.5 million to 1 odds of them having done so are
irrelevant.

When you say, "Once something has happened", I assume you're applying
this to life happening. It goes without saying that life happened, and
assuming you're not stating the obvious, I deduce you're saying that
life happened in a particular way - i.e. by naturalistic means, as a
given. Could you clarify your point?

All sorts of problems with using probability in regard to OOL (and the
fine tuning argument in general). The problems have been hammered to
death many but here is my own overview on them.
First of all, take the simple example I gave of the Irish Lotto. Let's
say Patrick Murphy wins the jackpot this week. Your argument is
essentially the same as somebody who knows him saying "Patrick is not
a particularly clever guy, with odds of over 10 million to one, he
couldn't possibly have won it on his own, he must have had some kind
of help - or maybe he's clairvoyant!
You may argue back that those odds are quite low compared to the odds
involved in some of your OOL calculations so let's imagine he goes on
to win next week as well. That's now odds of over 110 million to one
so your suspicions would be well and truly raised about something
untoward going on. Let's say he wins it a third weeks in a row; that's
odds of over a billion to one so according to your logic, that was
impossible, there definitely had to be some sort of intervention.
The first thing you are missing is that once Patrick has won the first
week, is odds of winning a second consecutive week are the exact same
odds as anyone else entering that week. Once he has won two weeks in a
row, his odds of winning a third consecutive week are the exact same
odds as anyone else entering that week.
The second thing you are missing is that the natural development is
not just random events. There is an underlying principle in nature
that things that offer an advantage tend to endure; things that are
disadvantageous tend not to endure. We see that particularly well
demonstrated in biological evolution with the Natural Selection
process, but it applies to other processes as well -trial and error is
a common feature of the design process of which you are so fond with
idea and processes that don't work out being discarded and ones that
do work out being retained and built upon. There is no reason not to
apply the same principle to the processes that led to OOL.
The third thing you get wrong, and arguably the most important one, is
that you assume there is something improbably unique about a
particular outcome. Let's use the usual example of dealing cards. If
you deal out a full pack of cards into 4 hands, the odds of each hand
getting 13 cards of one suit in sequence with the first hand getting
hearts, the second getting spades, the third getting diamonds, the
fourth getting clubs are approximately 8e67 to one - that's 8 followed
by 67 zeros. If you dealt that hand of cards at a bridge competition,
there would be uproar, all the competitors would come to your table to
see the hands, you'd likely get your photo and a write up in your
local newspaper. The thing about it is that there is nothing
inherently exceptional about that hand, It had the exact same chance
of being dealt as any other deal of 52 cards into 4 hands; every time
someone deals a bridge hand they are creating a result where the odds
were 8e67 to one. The only reason it looks so exceptional is that that
humans have chosen to regard it as special. The same applies to OOL;
the only reason OOL as we have experienced it looks exceptional is
because we have chosen to regard it as special. There is no reason to
think that if different processes had taken place, that some other
life form would not have developed.

Let's say for a moment that naturalistic formation of life is not
possible, and life was created by God through supernatural intervention.

Which is in fact the contention of the creationist camp, myself included.

Your comments above seem to make no allowance for this option. You seem
to be saying, regardless of any calculated or claimed probabilities or
potential natural limitations, life happened, and happened by natural
causes. The only legitimate activity now is to work backwards to
establish how nature may have done it.

Is that in effect what you're saying?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
Regardless, at the core of the origins question is probability. For
example, Dawkins book title "Climbing Mount Improbable" demonstrates
precisely this. Why was it written? To address a legitimate question - a
question of probability.

It's a long time since I read "Climbing Mount Improbable so I'm not
sure in what context Dakins used probability but I'd be absolutely
certain that it wasn't to support the idea of divine intervention!

Post by MarkE
I'm interested to hear your response to this before addressing your
other suggestions.

I did make 5 suggestions with probability possibly the least important
so I'd certainly like to hear your response to the others.

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
#2
If you are talking about God, then talk about God; stop using weasel
words like "designer" and "supernatural causes". It just sounds as if
you don't have confidence in or are embarrassed talking about the God
you believe in.

I use "designer" and "supernatural causes" for accuracy, not evasion. If
an appeal is made to non-natural causes on the basis of scientifically
determined inadequacy of natural explanations (say), all that can be
inferred in this context is that the alternative cause must be
"supernatural".

Personally, I'm happy to say "God", but not from science, rather from
faith and theology.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
#3
Stop trying to 'prove' your God hypothesis on the basis of gaps in the
potential pathways suggested by others; you have to show arguments
supporting your hypothesis in its own right.

There's not a symmetry here with identical requirements. It's not a case
of science and the scientific method being applied equally to the nature
hypothesis and the God hypothesis.

Rather, it would be science finding (provisional) inadequacy of
naturalistic explanations, and that finding being a scientific pointer,
a point of departure, to the God hypothesis.

Note that I'm not saying this is a requirement for belief in God.
Rather, it would merely provide additional evidence, in this case from
science itself.

I've called it a "point of departure" from science, not because it
undermines or contradicts science, but because it is located beyond the
bounds of science, and in the domain of metaphysics and theology.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
#4
In regard to making your case to the science community, you need to
offer some kind of suggestion as to how God might have gone about
this; for example, you need to explain why he fiddled about with the
precursors to your first protocell.

God is eternally preexisting, nonmaterial, above and beyond time,
matter, energy, but creating and controlling these.

God conceived of all created things before they came into being.

God spoke and there was...spacetime, matter, energy.

God created the initial low entropy state of the universe.

God designed physics, the periodic table, etc, as building blocks
capable of being fashioned into all created things.

God designed all living things and spoke them into being, either
directly, or indirectly through innate capacity for change and adaptation.

Etc.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
#5
In regard to making your case to religious believers, you need to
offer some explanation of how you get from God fiddling about with
protocells to us having a relationship with him and him sending his
son to us.

Nature provides general revelation: "For since the creation of the world
God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have
been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that
people are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)

The Bible provides special revelation: of us having a relationship with
him and him sending his son to us.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
That should be enough to be going on with!

Post by MarkE
- If the tar paradox is connected with configurational entropy, then
that is potentially a hard stop
- If the first protocell must have a warm little pond or connected ponds
supplying concentrated activated canonical nucleotides continuously for
millions of years, this may arguably be a geological impossibility

[...]

[Vincent Maycock]

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:10:27 +1100, MarkE <***@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

Post by MarkE
God is eternally preexisting, nonmaterial, above and beyond time,
matter, energy, but creating and controlling these.

If he's beyond time, on what stage or background does he do anything?

Post by MarkE
God conceived of all created things before they came into being.

How could we test this claim?

Post by MarkE
God spoke and there was...spacetime, matter, energy.

More likely those things have just always existed, the same as this
supposed god called God that you're talking about.

Post by MarkE
God created the initial low entropy state of the universe.

Could it have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster that created this low
entropy start for the universe?

Post by MarkE
God designed physics, the periodic table, etc, as building blocks
capable of being fashioned into all created things.

What about those useless high-mass elements found further on in the
periodic table?

Post by MarkE
God designed all living things and spoke them into being,

Would it be possible to catch God in the act of speaking things into
being?

Post by MarkE
either
directly, or indirectly through innate capacity for change and adaptation.

How does this indirect creation relate to universal common descent of
all living things?

Post by MarkE
Etc.

Like what?

[MarkE]

Post by Vincent Maycock
[...]

Post by MarkE
God is eternally preexisting, nonmaterial, above and beyond time,
matter, energy, but creating and controlling these.

If he's beyond time, on what stage or background does he do anything?

Given we exist in and bound by time, matter, energy, we are by
definition not able to comprehend the stage or background of God's
existence.

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by MarkE
God conceived of all created things before they came into being.

How could we test this claim?

Die.

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by MarkE
God spoke and there was...spacetime, matter, energy.

More likely those things have just always existed, the same as this
supposed god called God that you're talking about.

How did you calculate that likelihood?

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by MarkE
God created the initial low entropy state of the universe.

Could it have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster that created this low
entropy start for the universe?

You may prefer that hypothesis.

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by MarkE
God designed physics, the periodic table, etc, as building blocks
capable of being fashioned into all created things.

What about those useless high-mass elements found further on in the
periodic table?

What is your definition of useful, and why is usefulness so defined a
criterion?

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by MarkE
God designed all living things and spoke them into being,

Would it be possible to catch God in the act of speaking things into
being?

Too late. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1). Though since then he has been seen change water into
wine, and raise the dead.

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by MarkE
either
directly, or indirectly through innate capacity for change and adaptation.

How does this indirect creation relate to universal common descent of
all living things?

I don't have a settled opinion on this.

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by MarkE
Etc.

Like what?

Convince me that this is not the equivalent of the Python Argument
Clinic sketch.

[Vincent Maycock]

Post by MarkE

Post by Vincent Maycock
[...]

Post by MarkE
God is eternally preexisting, nonmaterial, above and beyond time,
matter, energy, but creating and controlling these.

If he's beyond time, on what stage or background does he do anything?

Given we exist in and bound by time, matter, energy, we are by
definition not able to comprehend the stage or background of God's
existence.

No, humans are quite adept at thinking in the abstract. Most of
modern mathematics is like that.

Post by MarkE

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by MarkE
God conceived of all created things before they came into being.

How could we test this claim?

Die.

Do you plan on killing yourself to test the claim?

Post by MarkE

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by MarkE
God spoke and there was...spacetime, matter, energy.

More likely those things have just always existed, the same as this
supposed god called God that you're talking about.

How did you calculate that likelihood?

How do you calculate the likelihood that God has always existed?

Post by MarkE

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by MarkE
God created the initial low entropy state of the universe.

Could it have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster that created this low
entropy start for the universe?

You may prefer that hypothesis.

What's preferable about that hypothesis?

Post by MarkE

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by MarkE
God designed physics, the periodic table, etc, as building blocks
capable of being fashioned into all created things.

What about those useless high-mass elements found further on in the
periodic table?

What is your definition of useful, and why is usefulness so defined a
criterion?

Usefulness is defined by you right up there -- "capable of being
fashioned into all created things."

Post by MarkE

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by MarkE
God designed all living things and spoke them into being,

Would it be possible to catch God in the act of speaking things into
being?

Too late. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1).

Are you a young earth creationist or an old earth creationist?

Post by MarkE
Though since then he has been seen change water into
wine, and raise the dead.

Why didn't anyone outside the Gospels notice these miracles? And if
he's "been seen" performing those miracles, what would prevent him
from using miracles to add to life's diversity here and now?

Post by MarkE

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by MarkE
either
directly, or indirectly through innate capacity for change and adaptation.

How does this indirect creation relate to universal common descent of
all living things?

I don't have a settled opinion on this.

So you're open to the possibility that all life forms evolved from a
common ancestor?

Post by MarkE

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by MarkE
Etc.

Like what?

Convince me that this is not the equivalent of the Python Argument
Clinic sketch.

[MarkE]

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by MarkE

Post by Vincent Maycock
[...]

Post by MarkE
God is eternally preexisting, nonmaterial, above and beyond time,
matter, energy, but creating and controlling these.

If he's beyond time, on what stage or background does he do anything?

Given we exist in and bound by time, matter, energy, we are by
definition not able to comprehend the stage or background of God's
existence.

No, humans are quite adept at thinking in the abstract. Most of
modern mathematics is like that.

Post by MarkE

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by MarkE
God conceived of all created things before they came into being.

How could we test this claim?

Die.

Do you plan on killing yourself to test the claim?

No need, we both will get to test this claim soon enough.

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by MarkE

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by MarkE
God spoke and there was...spacetime, matter, energy.

More likely those things have just always existed, the same as this
supposed god called God that you're talking about.

How did you calculate that likelihood?

How do you calculate the likelihood that God has always existed?

Post by MarkE

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by MarkE
God created the initial low entropy state of the universe.

Could it have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster that created this low
entropy start for the universe?

You may prefer that hypothesis.

What's preferable about that hypothesis?

Post by MarkE

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by MarkE
God designed physics, the periodic table, etc, as building blocks
capable of being fashioned into all created things.

What about those useless high-mass elements found further on in the
periodic table?

What is your definition of useful, and why is usefulness so defined a
criterion?

Usefulness is defined by you right up there -- "capable of being
fashioned into all created things."

Post by MarkE

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by MarkE
God designed all living things and spoke them into being,

Would it be possible to catch God in the act of speaking things into
being?

Too late. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1).

Are you a young earth creationist or an old earth creationist?

Post by MarkE
Though since then he has been seen change water into
wine, and raise the dead.

Why didn't anyone outside the Gospels notice these miracles? And if
he's "been seen" performing those miracles, what would prevent him
from using miracles to add to life's diversity here and now?

Post by MarkE

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by MarkE
either
directly, or indirectly through innate capacity for change and adaptation.

How does this indirect creation relate to universal common descent of
all living things?

I don't have a settled opinion on this.

So you're open to the possibility that all life forms evolved from a
common ancestor?

Post by MarkE

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by MarkE
Etc.

Like what?

Convince me that this is not the equivalent of the Python Argument
Clinic sketch.

http://montypython.50webs.com/scripts/Series_3/27.htm

[erik simpson]

Post by Vincent Maycock
[...]

Post by MarkE
God is eternally preexisting, nonmaterial, above and beyond time,
matter, energy, but creating and controlling these.

If he's beyond time, on what stage or background does he do anything?

Post by MarkE
God conceived of all created things before they came into being.

How could we test this claim?

Post by MarkE
God spoke and there was...spacetime, matter, energy.

More likely those things have just always existed, the same as this
supposed god called God that you're talking about.

Post by MarkE
God created the initial low entropy state of the universe.

Could it have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster that created this low
entropy start for the universe?

Post by MarkE
God designed physics, the periodic table, etc, as building blocks
capable of being fashioned into all created things.

What about those useless high-mass elements found further on in the
periodic table?

Post by MarkE
God designed all living things and spoke them into being,

Would it be possible to catch God in the act of speaking things into
being?

Post by MarkE
either
directly, or indirectly through innate capacity for change and adaptation.

How does this indirect creation relate to universal common descent of
all living things?

Post by MarkE
Etc.

Like what?

It'd be easy to catch God in the act. All you is a critter cam.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:05:50 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Vincent Maycock
[...]

Post by MarkE
God is eternally preexisting, nonmaterial, above and beyond time,
matter, energy, but creating and controlling these.

If he's beyond time, on what stage or background does he do anything?

Post by MarkE
God conceived of all created things before they came into being.

How could we test this claim?

Post by MarkE
God spoke and there was...spacetime, matter, energy.

More likely those things have just always existed, the same as this
supposed god called God that you're talking about.

Post by MarkE
God created the initial low entropy state of the universe.

Could it have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster that created this low
entropy start for the universe?

Post by MarkE
God designed physics, the periodic table, etc, as building blocks
capable of being fashioned into all created things.

What about those useless high-mass elements found further on in the
periodic table?

Post by MarkE
God designed all living things and spoke them into being,

Would it be possible to catch God in the act of speaking things into
being?

Post by MarkE
either
directly, or indirectly through innate capacity for change and adaptation.

How does this indirect creation relate to universal common descent of
all living things?

Post by MarkE
Etc.

Like what?

It'd be easy to catch God in the act. All you is a critter cam.

Right. Suddenly the Christian god is shy!

[erik simpson]

Post by Vincent Maycock
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:05:50 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Vincent Maycock
[...]

Post by MarkE
God is eternally preexisting, nonmaterial, above and beyond time,
matter, energy, but creating and controlling these.

If he's beyond time, on what stage or background does he do anything?

Post by MarkE
God conceived of all created things before they came into being.

How could we test this claim?

Post by MarkE
God spoke and there was...spacetime, matter, energy.

More likely those things have just always existed, the same as this
supposed god called God that you're talking about.

Post by MarkE
God created the initial low entropy state of the universe.

Could it have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster that created this low
entropy start for the universe?

Post by MarkE
God designed physics, the periodic table, etc, as building blocks
capable of being fashioned into all created things.

What about those useless high-mass elements found further on in the
periodic table?

Post by MarkE
God designed all living things and spoke them into being,

Would it be possible to catch God in the act of speaking things into
being?

Post by MarkE
either
directly, or indirectly through innate capacity for change and adaptation.

How does this indirect creation relate to universal common descent of
all living things?

Post by MarkE
Etc.

Like what?

It'd be easy to catch God in the act. All you is a critter cam.

Right. Suddenly the Christian god is shy!

He needn't be. He's too big to fit in the frame anyway.

[jillery]

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:10:27 +1100, MarkE <***@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip for focus>

Post by MarkE
God is eternally preexisting, nonmaterial, above and beyond time,
matter, energy, but creating and controlling these.
God conceived of all created things before they came into being.
God spoke and there was...spacetime, matter, energy.
God created the initial low entropy state of the universe.
God designed physics, the periodic table, etc, as building blocks
capable of being fashioned into all created things.
God designed all living things and spoke them into being, either
directly, or indirectly through innate capacity for change and adaptation.
Etc.

Post by Martin Harran
#5
In regard to making your case to religious believers, you need to
offer some explanation of how you get from God fiddling about with
protocells to us having a relationship with him and him sending his
son to us.

Nature provides general revelation: "For since the creation of the world
God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have
been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that
people are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)
The Bible provides special revelation: of us having a relationship with
him and him sending his son to us.

Assuming true all that you post above, you still don't identify *what*
you think nature reveals about God, and/or *how* you think nature
reveals them.

For instance:
What are God's eternal powers?
What is God's divine nature?
What is this "special revelation"?
What is God's "special relationship" with us?

History shows that people have claimed that nature identifies numerous
and sometimes conflicting attributes about God. For example, it has
been said that nature shows God is inordinately fond of beetles, and
that nature shows the universe is almost completely hostile to life as
we know it. These things suggest God's relationship to us isn't all
that special after all.

[Martin Harran]

[snip for focus]

Post by MarkE
Let's say for a moment that naturalistic formation of life is not
possible, and life was created by God through supernatural intervention.
Which is in fact the contention of the creationist camp, myself included.
Your comments above seem to make no allowance for this option. You seem
to be saying, regardless of any calculated or claimed probabilities or
potential natural limitations, life happened, and happened by natural
causes. The only legitimate activity now is to work backwards to
establish how nature may have done it.
Is that in effect what you're saying?

Not quite. What I am saying is there is no reason not to think that
life came into being through natural processes. The fact that science
cannot at this stage explain exactly how it all happened is not, on
its own, reason to dismiss that. If you want to dismiss it then you
have to offer some sort of credible alternative and "God spoke" is not
a credible alternative - I'll say more about that below.

I don't at all dismiss God from the process. In a reply to my own
post, I gave you my ideas about how God could have been the driving
force behind the processes without invoking or interfering directly in
them. What do you see wrong with that proposal?

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
Regardless, at the core of the origins question is probability. For
example, Dawkins book title "Climbing Mount Improbable" demonstrates
precisely this. Why was it written? To address a legitimate question - a
question of probability.

It's a long time since I read "Climbing Mount Improbable so I'm not
sure in what context Dakins used probability but I'd be absolutely
certain that it wasn't to support the idea of divine intervention!

Post by MarkE
I'm interested to hear your response to this before addressing your
other suggestions.

I did make 5 suggestions with probability possibly the least important
so I'd certainly like to hear your response to the others.

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
#2
If you are talking about God, then talk about God; stop using weasel
words like "designer" and "supernatural causes". It just sounds as if
you don't have confidence in or are embarrassed talking about the God
you believe in.

I use "designer" and "supernatural causes" for accuracy, not evasion.

In what way are they more accurate and how do you reconcile the idea
of designer (who works with trial and error) with an omnipotent God
who can do anything directly without fiddling about with different
ideas, most of which end up on the junkhaeap (extinct species)?

#

Post by MarkE
If
an appeal is made to non-natural causes on the basis of scientifically
determined inadequacy of natural explanations (say), all that can be
inferred in this context is that the alternative cause must be
"supernatural".
Personally, I'm happy to say "God", but not from science, rather from
faith and theology.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
#3
Stop trying to 'prove' your God hypothesis on the basis of gaps in the
potential pathways suggested by others; you have to show arguments
supporting your hypothesis in its own right.

There's not a symmetry here with identical requirements. It's not a case
of science and the scientific method being applied equally to the nature
hypothesis and the God hypothesis.
Rather, it would be science finding (provisional) inadequacy of
naturalistic explanations, and that finding being a scientific pointer,
a point of departure, to the God hypothesis.

Science does not "find inadequacy" in the sense you use it. You see
what you regard as inadequate as grounds for dismissal; science sees
it as a motivator to trigger further investigation. Science doesn't
just give up after some undefined period of time as you seem to think
it should -It's a never-ending process, that's why scientists are
still working on OOL, they are satisfied with all the answers so they
are continually trying to dig deeper.

Here's a thought for you. Depending on how you identify intelligence,
intelligent man has been around for at least 2.4 million years. At
least 90% (I'd say 99%+ but let's not argue about it) of all
scientific knowledge we have has been developed in the last 400 or so
years, less than 20 % of the minimum time that human intelligence has
existed. Never mind this year or next year, what makes you think that
science won't come to fully understand OOL over the next 400 years, or
even the next 2.4 million years? What is your cut off point for
science to give up?

Post by MarkE
Note that I'm not saying this is a requirement for belief in God.
Rather, it would merely provide additional evidence, in this case from
science itself.

How do you think science could go about finding evidence from the
supernatural?

Post by MarkE
I've called it a "point of departure" from science, not because it
undermines or contradicts science, but because it is located beyond the
bounds of science, and in the domain of metaphysics and theology.

If it's beyond the bounds of science then that contradicts the
possibility of what you said just above about "additional evidence, in
this case from science itself."

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
#4
In regard to making your case to the science community, you need to
offer some kind of suggestion as to how God might have gone about
this; for example, you need to explain why he fiddled about with the
precursors to your first protocell.

God is eternally preexisting, nonmaterial, above and beyond time,
matter, energy, but creating and controlling these.
God conceived of all created things before they came into being.
God spoke and there was...spacetime, matter, energy.
God created the initial low entropy state of the universe.
God designed physics, the periodic table, etc, as building blocks
capable of being fashioned into all created things.
God designed all living things and spoke them into being, either
directly, or indirectly through innate capacity for change and adaptation.
Etc.

Is "God spoke …" seriously the best you have to offer?

Can you offer any suggestions as to how he went about speaking; for
example, did he speak the precursors of the protocell into existence
and then go on to speak the protocell itself into existence or did he
just do the precursors and leave them to get on themselves with the
job of making the protocell?

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
#5
In regard to making your case to religious believers, you need to
offer some explanation of how you get from God fiddling about with
protocells to us having a relationship with him and him sending his
son to us.

Nature provides general revelation: "For since the creation of the world
God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have
been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that
people are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)
The Bible provides special revelation: of us having a relationship with
him and him sending his son to us.

If God ultimately wanted to make man *in his own image*, why would he
have bothered farting about with protocells and the like?

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
That should be enough to be going on with!

Post by MarkE
- If the tar paradox is connected with configurational entropy, then
that is potentially a hard stop
- If the first protocell must have a warm little pond or connected ponds
supplying concentrated activated canonical nucleotides continuously for
millions of years, this may arguably be a geological impossibility

[...]

2CO%2CP-R

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:56:13 +0000, Martin Harran
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

"... they are satisfied with all the answers so they are continually
trying to dig deeper."

Should be "NOT satisfied"

[MarkE]

Post by Martin Harran
[snip for focus]

Post by MarkE
Let's say for a moment that naturalistic formation of life is not
possible, and life was created by God through supernatural intervention.
Which is in fact the contention of the creationist camp, myself included.
Your comments above seem to make no allowance for this option. You seem
to be saying, regardless of any calculated or claimed probabilities or
potential natural limitations, life happened, and happened by natural
causes. The only legitimate activity now is to work backwards to
establish how nature may have done it.
Is that in effect what you're saying?

Not quite. What I am saying is there is no reason not to think that
life came into being through natural processes. The fact that science
cannot at this stage explain exactly how it all happened is not, on
its own, reason to dismiss that. If you want to dismiss it then you
have to offer some sort of credible alternative and "God spoke" is not
a credible alternative - I'll say more about that below.
I don't at all dismiss God from the process. In a reply to my own
post, I gave you my ideas about how God could have been the driving
force behind the processes without invoking or interfering directly in
them. What do you see wrong with that proposal?

Let's consider your assertion, "What I am saying is there is no reason
not to think that life came into being through natural processes."

Why does talk.origins exist?
Why do public debates take place on this topic?
Why do many people, including scientists, disagree with you?

There are two options:

Option 1: There is legitimacy to both positions, to both interpretations
of the world, including scientific evidence; therefore let's discuss and
argue our respective cases, perspectives and reasoning.

Option 2: There is no reason not to think that life came into being
through natural processes, therefore anyone disagreeing with this
position is either unintelligent, ignorant, or dishonest.

You seem to be espousing option 2. If so, what basis for discussion do
we have?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
Regardless, at the core of the origins question is probability. For
example, Dawkins book title "Climbing Mount Improbable" demonstrates
precisely this. Why was it written? To address a legitimate question - a
question of probability.

It's a long time since I read "Climbing Mount Improbable so I'm not
sure in what context Dakins used probability but I'd be absolutely
certain that it wasn't to support the idea of divine intervention!

Post by MarkE
I'm interested to hear your response to this before addressing your
other suggestions.

I did make 5 suggestions with probability possibly the least important
so I'd certainly like to hear your response to the others.

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
#2
If you are talking about God, then talk about God; stop using weasel
words like "designer" and "supernatural causes". It just sounds as if
you don't have confidence in or are embarrassed talking about the God
you believe in.

I use "designer" and "supernatural causes" for accuracy, not evasion.

In what way are they more accurate and how do you reconcile the idea
of designer (who works with trial and error) with an omnipotent God
who can do anything directly without fiddling about with different
ideas, most of which end up on the junkhaeap (extinct species)?
#

Post by MarkE
If
an appeal is made to non-natural causes on the basis of scientifically
determined inadequacy of natural explanations (say), all that can be
inferred in this context is that the alternative cause must be
"supernatural".
Personally, I'm happy to say "God", but not from science, rather from
faith and theology.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
#3
Stop trying to 'prove' your God hypothesis on the basis of gaps in the
potential pathways suggested by others; you have to show arguments
supporting your hypothesis in its own right.

There's not a symmetry here with identical requirements. It's not a case
of science and the scientific method being applied equally to the nature
hypothesis and the God hypothesis.
Rather, it would be science finding (provisional) inadequacy of
naturalistic explanations, and that finding being a scientific pointer,
a point of departure, to the God hypothesis.

Science does not "find inadequacy" in the sense you use it. You see
what you regard as inadequate as grounds for dismissal; science sees
it as a motivator to trigger further investigation. Science doesn't
just give up after some undefined period of time as you seem to think
it should -It's a never-ending process, that's why scientists are
still working on OOL, they are satisfied with all the answers so they
are continually trying to dig deeper.
Here's a thought for you. Depending on how you identify intelligence,
intelligent man has been around for at least 2.4 million years. At
least 90% (I'd say 99%+ but let's not argue about it) of all
scientific knowledge we have has been developed in the last 400 or so
years, less than 20 % of the minimum time that human intelligence has
existed. Never mind this year or next year, what makes you think that
science won't come to fully understand OOL over the next 400 years, or
even the next 2.4 million years? What is your cut off point for
science to give up?

Post by MarkE
Note that I'm not saying this is a requirement for belief in God.
Rather, it would merely provide additional evidence, in this case from
science itself.

How do you think science could go about finding evidence from the
supernatural?

Post by MarkE
I've called it a "point of departure" from science, not because it
undermines or contradicts science, but because it is located beyond the
bounds of science, and in the domain of metaphysics and theology.

If it's beyond the bounds of science then that contradicts the
possibility of what you said just above about "additional evidence, in
this case from science itself."

Today:

1. OoL research is progressing well enough that there's no need to
consider supernatural causes (on the basis of science)

or

2. OoL research is not progressing well:
2.1 Keep looking for natural causes only, or
2.2 Give up looking, or
2.3 Keep looking for natural causes, but consider supernatural agency
2.4 Give up looking for natural causes, but consider supernatural agency

I assume you would locate yourself at 1?


Future:

3. If after 10,000 years of concerted OoL research (say), all known
natural explanations and pathways have been deemed implausible (say):
3.1 Keep looking for natural causes only, or
3.2 Give up looking, or
3.3 Keep looking for natural causes, but consider supernatural agency
3.4 Give up looking for natural causes, but consider supernatural agency

Where would you locate yourself?

If you choose 3.1 or 3.2, that's fine, but what basis for discussion do
we then have?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
#4
In regard to making your case to the science community, you need to
offer some kind of suggestion as to how God might have gone about
this; for example, you need to explain why he fiddled about with the
precursors to your first protocell.

God is eternally preexisting, nonmaterial, above and beyond time,
matter, energy, but creating and controlling these.
God conceived of all created things before they came into being.
God spoke and there was...spacetime, matter, energy.
God created the initial low entropy state of the universe.
God designed physics, the periodic table, etc, as building blocks
capable of being fashioned into all created things.
God designed all living things and spoke them into being, either
directly, or indirectly through innate capacity for change and adaptation.
Etc.

Is "God spoke …" seriously the best you have to offer?
Can you offer any suggestions as to how he went about speaking; for
example, did he speak the precursors of the protocell into existence
and then go on to speak the protocell itself into existence or did he
just do the precursors and leave them to get on themselves with the
job of making the protocell?

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
#5
In regard to making your case to religious believers, you need to
offer some explanation of how you get from God fiddling about with
protocells to us having a relationship with him and him sending his
son to us.

Nature provides general revelation: "For since the creation of the world
God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have
been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that
people are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)
The Bible provides special revelation: of us having a relationship with
him and him sending his son to us.

If God ultimately wanted to make man *in his own image*, why would he
have bothered farting about with protocells and the like?

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
That should be enough to be going on with!

Post by MarkE
- If the tar paradox is connected with configurational entropy, then
that is potentially a hard stop
- If the first protocell must have a warm little pond or connected ponds
supplying concentrated activated canonical nucleotides continuously for
millions of years, this may arguably be a geological impossibility

[...]

2CO%2CP-R

[erik simpson]

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
[snip for focus]

Post by MarkE
Let's say for a moment that naturalistic formation of life is not
possible, and life was created by God through supernatural intervention.
Which is in fact the contention of the creationist camp, myself included.
Your comments above seem to make no allowance for this option. You seem
to be saying, regardless of any calculated or claimed probabilities or
potential natural limitations, life happened, and happened by natural
causes. The only legitimate activity now is to work backwards to
establish how nature may have done it.
Is that in effect what you're saying?

Not quite. What I am saying is there is no reason not to think that
life came into being through natural processes. The fact that science
cannot at this stage explain exactly how it all happened is not, on
its own, reason to dismiss that. If you want to dismiss it then you
have to offer some sort of credible alternative and "God spoke" is not
a credible alternative - I'll say more about that below.
I don't at all dismiss God from the process. In a reply to my own
post, I gave you my ideas about how God could have been the driving
force behind the processes without invoking or interfering directly in
them. What do you see wrong with that proposal?

Let's consider your assertion, "What I am saying is there is no reason
not to think that life came into being through natural processes."
Why does talk.origins exist?
Why do public debates take place on this topic?
Why do many people, including scientists, disagree with you?
Option 1: There is legitimacy to both positions, to both interpretations
of the world, including scientific evidence; therefore let's discuss and
argue our respective cases, perspectives and reasoning.
Option 2: There is no reason not to think that life came into being
through natural processes, therefore anyone disagreeing with this
position is either unintelligent, ignorant, or dishonest.
You seem to be espousing option 2. If so, what basis for discussion do
we have?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
Regardless, at the core of the origins question is probability. For
example, Dawkins book title "Climbing Mount Improbable" demonstrates
precisely this. Why was it written? To address a legitimate question - a
question of probability.

It's a long time since I read "Climbing Mount Improbable so I'm not
sure in what context Dakins used probability but I'd be absolutely
certain that it wasn't to support the idea of divine intervention!

Post by MarkE
I'm interested to hear your response to this before addressing your
other suggestions.

I did make 5 suggestions with probability possibly the least important
so I'd certainly like to hear your response to the others.

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
#2
If you are talking about God, then talk about God; stop using weasel
words like "designer" and "supernatural causes". It just sounds as if
you don't have confidence in or are embarrassed talking about the God
you believe in.

I use "designer" and "supernatural causes" for accuracy, not evasion.

In what way are they more accurate and how do you reconcile the idea
of designer (who works with trial and error) with an omnipotent God
who can do anything directly without fiddling about with different
ideas, most of which end up on the junkhaeap (extinct species)?
#

Post by MarkE
If
an appeal is made to non-natural causes on the basis of scientifically
determined inadequacy of natural explanations (say), all that can be
inferred in this context is that the alternative cause must be
"supernatural".
Personally, I'm happy to say "God", but not from science, rather from
faith and theology.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
#3
Stop trying to 'prove' your God hypothesis on the basis of gaps in the
potential pathways suggested by others; you have to show arguments
supporting your hypothesis in its own right.

There's not a symmetry here with identical requirements. It's not a case
of science and the scientific method being applied equally to the nature
hypothesis and the God hypothesis.
Rather, it would be science finding (provisional) inadequacy of
naturalistic explanations, and that finding being a scientific pointer,
a point of departure, to the God hypothesis.

Science does not "find inadequacy" in the sense you use it. You see
what you regard as inadequate as grounds for dismissal; science sees
it as a motivator to trigger further investigation. Science doesn't
just give up after some undefined period of time as you seem to think
it should -It's a never-ending process, that's why scientists are
still working on OOL, they are satisfied with all the answers so they
are continually trying to dig deeper.
Here's a thought for you. Depending on how you identify intelligence,
intelligent man has been around for at least 2.4 million years. At
least 90% (I'd say 99%+ but let's not argue about it) of all
scientific knowledge we have has been developed in the last 400 or so
years, less than 20 % of the minimum time that human intelligence has
existed. Never mind this year or next year, what makes you think that
science won't come to fully understand OOL over the next 400 years, or
even the next 2.4 million years? What is your cut off point for
science to give up?

Post by MarkE
Note that I'm not saying this is a requirement for belief in God.
Rather, it would merely provide additional evidence, in this case from
science itself.

How do you think science could go about finding evidence from the
supernatural?

Post by MarkE
I've called it a "point of departure" from science, not because it
undermines or contradicts science, but because it is located beyond the
bounds of science, and in the domain of metaphysics and theology.

If it's beyond the bounds of science then that contradicts the
possibility of what you said just above about "additional evidence, in
this case from science itself."

1. OoL research is progressing well enough that there's no need to
consider supernatural causes (on the basis of science)
or
   2.1 Keep looking for natural causes only, or
   2.2 Give up looking, or
   2.3 Keep looking for natural causes, but consider supernatural agency
   2.4 Give up looking for natural causes, but consider supernatural
agency
I assume you would locate yourself at 1?
3. If after 10,000 years of concerted OoL research (say), all known
   3.1 Keep looking for natural causes only, or
   3.2 Give up looking, or
   3.3 Keep looking for natural causes, but consider supernatural agency
   3.4 Give up looking for natural causes, but consider supernatural
agency
Where would you locate yourself?
If you choose 3.1 or 3.2, that's fine, but what basis for discussion do
we then have?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
#4
In regard to making your case to the science community, you need to
offer some kind of suggestion as to how God might have gone about
this; for example, you need to explain why he fiddled about with the
precursors to your first protocell.

God is eternally preexisting, nonmaterial, above and beyond time,
matter, energy, but creating and controlling these.
God conceived of all created things before they came into being.
God spoke and there was...spacetime, matter, energy.
God created the initial low entropy state of the universe.
God designed physics, the periodic table, etc, as building blocks
capable of being fashioned into all created things.
God designed all living things and spoke them into being, either
directly, or indirectly through innate capacity for change and adaptation.
Etc.

Is "God spoke …" seriously the best you have to offer?
Can you offer any suggestions as to how he went about speaking; for
example, did he speak the precursors of the protocell into existence
and then go on to speak the protocell itself into existence or did he
just do the precursors and leave them to get on themselves with the
job of making the protocell?

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
#5
In regard to making your case to religious believers, you need to
offer some explanation of how you get from God fiddling about with
protocells to us having a relationship with him and him sending his
son to us.

Nature provides general revelation: "For since the creation of the world
God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have
been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that
people are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)
The Bible provides special revelation: of us having a relationship with
him and him sending his son to us.

If God ultimately wanted to make man *in his own image*, why would he
have bothered farting about with protocells and the like?

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
That should be enough to be going on with!

Post by MarkE
- If the tar paradox is connected with configurational entropy, then
that is potentially a hard stop
- If the first protocell must have a warm little pond or
connected ponds
supplying concentrated activated canonical nucleotides
continuously for
millions of years, this may arguably be a geological impossibility

[...]

2CO%2CP-R

Just keep looking. You can always figure out what and how it happened.

[Mark Isaak]

Post by MarkE
Let's say for a moment that naturalistic formation of life is not
possible, and life was created by God through supernatural intervention.

If it happened in this universe, then it is, by definition, part of
nature and therefore natural.

Post by MarkE
Which is in fact the contention of the creationist camp, myself included.
Your comments above seem to make no allowance for this option. You seem
to be saying, regardless of any calculated or claimed probabilities or
potential natural limitations, life happened, and happened by natural
causes. The only legitimate activity now is to work backwards to
establish how nature may have done it.
Is that in effect what you're saying?

Isn't that what you're saying? Except you add that how it was done was
magic, as established by your own preferences for how it should be done.

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran
#3
Stop trying to 'prove' your God hypothesis on the basis of gaps in the
potential pathways suggested by others; you have to show arguments
supporting your hypothesis in its own right.

There's not a symmetry here with identical requirements. It's not a case
of science and the scientific method being applied equally to the nature
hypothesis and the God hypothesis.
Rather, it would be science finding (provisional) inadequacy of
naturalistic explanations, and that finding being a scientific pointer,
a point of departure, to the God hypothesis.

Just as an exercise in fairness, what would you consider sufficient to
establish the inadequacy of the God hypothesis?

[...]

[DB Cates]

On 2024-12-14 6:04 a.m., MarkE wrote:
[big snip]

Post by MarkE
Christian de Duve put it this way: "Science is based on the working
hypothesis that things are naturally explainable. This may or may not be
true. But the only way to find out is to make every possible effort to
explain things naturally. Only if one fails - assuming failure can ever
be definitely established - would be entitled to state that what one is
studying is not naturally explainable."
That seems close what to what I'm proposing. Thoughts?

For argument's sake, let's say that is true.
Now, how do you get from 'OoL is supernatural' to the Christian god or
indeed any god at all? I suppose we could call it the 'god of OoL' but
now what else do we know about this 'god'?

[erik simpson]

Post by DB Cates
[big snip]

Post by MarkE
Christian de Duve put it this way: "Science is based on the working
hypothesis that things are naturally explainable. This may or may not
be true. But the only way to find out is to make every possible effort
to explain things naturally. Only if one fails - assuming failure can
ever be definitely established - would be entitled to state that what
one is studying is not naturally explainable."
That seems close what to what I'm proposing. Thoughts?

For argument's sake, let's say that is true.
Now, how do you get from 'OoL is supernatural' to the Christian god or
indeed any god at all? I suppose we could call it the 'god of OoL' but
now what else do we know about this 'god'?

If it's explainable, there's little difference between invoking god(s)
or looking for natural causes. Many scientists believe in god, and
you're in good company with Issac Newton, probably the best physicist
who ever lived. He explained things that many believed inexplicable.

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 08:46:26 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by DB Cates
[big snip]

Post by MarkE
Christian de Duve put it this way: "Science is based on the working
hypothesis that things are naturally explainable. This may or may not
be true. But the only way to find out is to make every possible effort
to explain things naturally. Only if one fails - assuming failure can
ever be definitely established - would be entitled to state that what
one is studying is not naturally explainable."
That seems close what to what I'm proposing. Thoughts?

For argument's sake, let's say that is true.
Now, how do you get from 'OoL is supernatural' to the Christian god or
indeed any god at all? I suppose we could call it the 'god of OoL' but
now what else do we know about this 'god'?

If it's explainable, there's little difference between invoking god(s)
or looking for natural causes. Many scientists believe in god, and
you're in good company with Issac Newton, probably the best physicist
who ever lived. He explained things that many believed inexplicable.

According to MarkE's logic he shouldn't have bothered trying to
explain them in the first place because nobody been able to explain
them over thousands of years so they had to be inexplicable by natural
means and therefore had to be supernatural!

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 17:52:14 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 08:46:26 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by DB Cates
[big snip]

Post by MarkE
Christian de Duve put it this way: "Science is based on the working
hypothesis that things are naturally explainable. This may or may not
be true. But the only way to find out is to make every possible effort
to explain things naturally. Only if one fails - assuming failure can
ever be definitely established - would be entitled to state that what
one is studying is not naturally explainable."
That seems close what to what I'm proposing. Thoughts?

For argument's sake, let's say that is true.
Now, how do you get from 'OoL is supernatural' to the Christian god or
indeed any god at all? I suppose we could call it the 'god of OoL' but
now what else do we know about this 'god'?

If it's explainable, there's little difference between invoking god(s)
or looking for natural causes. Many scientists believe in god, and
you're in good company with Issac Newton, probably the best physicist
who ever lived. He explained things that many believed inexplicable.

According to MarkE's logic he shouldn't have bothered trying to
explain them in the first place because nobody been able to explain
them over thousands of years so they had to be inexplicable by natural
means and therefore had to be supernatural!

I.e., the same class of "logic" propounded by a (thankfully
long absent) poster here who insisted that people today are
more intelligent than those in ancient Egypt, because we
have cell phones and they didn't.

(Actually, I'm tempted to argue the opposite, after watching
various "cellphone zombies" start to walk into traffic...)

[erik simpson]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 17:52:14 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 08:46:26 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by DB Cates
[big snip]

Post by MarkE
Christian de Duve put it this way: "Science is based on the working
hypothesis that things are naturally explainable. This may or may not
be true. But the only way to find out is to make every possible effort
to explain things naturally. Only if one fails - assuming failure can
ever be definitely established - would be entitled to state that what
one is studying is not naturally explainable."
That seems close what to what I'm proposing. Thoughts?

For argument's sake, let's say that is true.
Now, how do you get from 'OoL is supernatural' to the Christian god or
indeed any god at all? I suppose we could call it the 'god of OoL' but
now what else do we know about this 'god'?

If it's explainable, there's little difference between invoking god(s)
or looking for natural causes. Many scientists believe in god, and
you're in good company with Issac Newton, probably the best physicist
who ever lived. He explained things that many believed inexplicable.

According to MarkE's logic he shouldn't have bothered trying to
explain them in the first place because nobody been able to explain
them over thousands of years so they had to be inexplicable by natural
means and therefore had to be supernatural!

I.e., the same class of "logic" propounded by a (thankfully
long absent) poster here who insisted that people today are
more intelligent than those in ancient Egypt, because we
have cell phones and they didn't.
(Actually, I'm tempted to argue the opposite, after watching
various "cellphone zombies" start to walk into traffic...)

Actually people have been getting dumber since ancient Egypt. Medical
treatment is much more effective, and defective (in all ways) people now
survive.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 13:42:43 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 17:52:14 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 08:46:26 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by DB Cates
[big snip]

Post by MarkE
Christian de Duve put it this way: "Science is based on the working
hypothesis that things are naturally explainable. This may or may not
be true. But the only way to find out is to make every possible effort
to explain things naturally. Only if one fails - assuming failure can
ever be definitely established - would be entitled to state that what
one is studying is not naturally explainable."
That seems close what to what I'm proposing. Thoughts?

For argument's sake, let's say that is true.
Now, how do you get from 'OoL is supernatural' to the Christian god or
indeed any god at all? I suppose we could call it the 'god of OoL' but
now what else do we know about this 'god'?

If it's explainable, there's little difference between invoking god(s)
or looking for natural causes. Many scientists believe in god, and
you're in good company with Issac Newton, probably the best physicist
who ever lived. He explained things that many believed inexplicable.

According to MarkE's logic he shouldn't have bothered trying to
explain them in the first place because nobody been able to explain
them over thousands of years so they had to be inexplicable by natural
means and therefore had to be supernatural!

I.e., the same class of "logic" propounded by a (thankfully
long absent) poster here who insisted that people today are
more intelligent than those in ancient Egypt, because we
have cell phones and they didn't.
(Actually, I'm tempted to argue the opposite, after watching
various "cellphone zombies" start to walk into traffic...)

Actually people have been getting dumber since ancient Egypt. Medical
treatment is much more effective, and defective (in all ways) people now
survive.

So I also believe; intelligence today is not particularly
beneficial.

[erik simpson]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 13:42:43 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 17:52:14 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 08:46:26 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by DB Cates
[big snip]

Post by MarkE
Christian de Duve put it this way: "Science is based on the working
hypothesis that things are naturally explainable. This may or may not
be true. But the only way to find out is to make every possible effort
to explain things naturally. Only if one fails - assuming failure can
ever be definitely established - would be entitled to state that what
one is studying is not naturally explainable."
That seems close what to what I'm proposing. Thoughts?

For argument's sake, let's say that is true.
Now, how do you get from 'OoL is supernatural' to the Christian god or
indeed any god at all? I suppose we could call it the 'god of OoL' but
now what else do we know about this 'god'?

If it's explainable, there's little difference between invoking god(s)
or looking for natural causes. Many scientists believe in god, and
you're in good company with Issac Newton, probably the best physicist
who ever lived. He explained things that many believed inexplicable.

According to MarkE's logic he shouldn't have bothered trying to
explain them in the first place because nobody been able to explain
them over thousands of years so they had to be inexplicable by natural
means and therefore had to be supernatural!

I.e., the same class of "logic" propounded by a (thankfully
long absent) poster here who insisted that people today are
more intelligent than those in ancient Egypt, because we
have cell phones and they didn't.
(Actually, I'm tempted to argue the opposite, after watching
various "cellphone zombies" start to walk into traffic...)

Actually people have been getting dumber since ancient Egypt. Medical
treatment is much more effective, and defective (in all ways) people now
survive.

So I also believe; intelligence today is not particularly
beneficial.

Depends on whose intelligence we're depending on. RFK J., for example,
would be a disaster.

[Ernest Major]

Post by DB Cates
[big snip]

Post by MarkE
Christian de Duve put it this way: "Science is based on the working
hypothesis that things are naturally explainable. This may or may not
be true. But the only way to find out is to make every possible effort
to explain things naturally. Only if one fails - assuming failure can
ever be definitely established - would be entitled to state that what
one is studying is not naturally explainable."
That seems close what to what I'm proposing. Thoughts?

For argument's sake, let's say that is true.
Now, how do you get from 'OoL is supernatural' to the Christian god or
indeed any god at all? I suppose we could call it the 'god of OoL' but
now what else do we know about this 'god'?

Call it the Progenitor. That way you don't accidentally (or not so
accidentally) drag in the baggage associated with the word god.

[Mark Isaak]

Post by MarkE

Post by Martin Harran

Post by MarkE
"MaekE is stuck with his idea that only a zero probability of OOL is
necessary to prove the existence of god.  He doesn't understand that god
can explain anything, including a high probability of OOL.  He has a
real blind spot there, to be charitable."
Say, for argument's sake, we determined that the origin of life could
not be explained by natural causes.
Then by definition, we must conclude supernatural causes, and haggle
over the definition of supernatural.

No, all you can conclude is that we can't figure it out. A few
thousand years ago, people couldn't figure out how the sun moved
across the sky so they concluded it must be a god driving a fiery
chariot. How did that go?
The thing that you and other IDers either don't see or choose to
ignore is that the absence of an explanation doesn't prove anything,
you have to have some linkage between the unexplained problem and your
proposed answer. I asked you before how you get from your protocell to
a God we can interact with. As far as I remember, your answer was that
it wasn't up to you to figure that out. Well, I have news for you, if
you want to gain any credibility for your arguments, then you do have
to figure it out.

There's nuance here. As I've said here many times before, there is the
error of prematurely invoking divine action. When that is done, it is
shown to be error by subsequent scientific advances. That's an appeal to
the god-of-the-gaps.

One point I think you are overlooking is that invoking divine action has
*never* worked as an explanation, and there is no reason to believe it
ever would.

Also, you seem to be in denial that your Option 1 below can be a God
hypothesis, for anyone who believes in a a god that has a place in this
universe. Option 2 seems to rule *out* that sort of god.

Post by MarkE
However, consider this scenario. Let's say there were 500 years of
active OoL research from this time on. What if (say) little further
progress has been made. In fact, the greatly enlarged body of
understanding and experimental results in this area have revealed that
(say) the barriers to the naturalistic formation of a viable protocell
are far, far deeper than than is regarded today.
What then?
Well, a person living 500 years from now still has a personal choice to
Option 1. They may choose to say, "We just don't know, but keep looking;
I still have no need of that God hypothesis."
Option 2. Or they may choose a provisional position like this: "On the
basis of the accumulated scientific evidence, I'll take a closer look at
the God hypothesis, though continue looking for a natural explanation."

I'd like more information about what the God hypothesis is. Is it just a
name to cover the idea, "We just don't know (and stop looking)", or do
you have any suggestions for *how* God worked?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:51:36 +1100, the following appeared

Post by MarkE

Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 16:54:56 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

Please provide the mathematical calculations which support
your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars; no
"but it seems too long!" whining.

At some point this would need to be calculated and quantified, so valid
request.
My discussion at this stage though is a line of reasoning that in
principle may significantly reduce the presumed probabilistic resources
available for the formation of an autonomous protocell.
In summary the argument is: if a hypothesised little warm pond (or
thermal vent, etc) has virtually zero chance of producing this
P(OoL) = N_ponds x N_planets x P(protocell) x P(post-protocell)
If P(protocell) -> 0, then P(OoL) -> 0
Of course, it remains to be demonstrated that P(protocell) -> 0, but
would you agree with the logic of the argument?

Logic is worthless absent data, and can prove (or disprove)
nothing. Your argument is as valid as that of the Fermi
"Paradox" or arguments regarding the number of angels that
can dance on a pinpoint; i.e., of zero value without data.
So again, please provide the mathematical calculations which
support your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars.

[erik simpson]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:51:36 +1100, the following appeared

Post by MarkE

Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 16:54:56 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

Please provide the mathematical calculations which support
your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars; no
"but it seems too long!" whining.

At some point this would need to be calculated and quantified, so valid
request.
My discussion at this stage though is a line of reasoning that in
principle may significantly reduce the presumed probabilistic resources
available for the formation of an autonomous protocell.
In summary the argument is: if a hypothesised little warm pond (or
thermal vent, etc) has virtually zero chance of producing this
P(OoL) = N_ponds x N_planets x P(protocell) x P(post-protocell)
If P(protocell) -> 0, then P(OoL) -> 0
Of course, it remains to be demonstrated that P(protocell) -> 0, but
would you agree with the logic of the argument?

Logic is worthless absent data, and can prove (or disprove)
nothing. Your argument is as valid as that of the Fermi
"Paradox" or arguments regarding the number of angels that
can dance on a pinpoint; i.e., of zero value without data.
So again, please provide the mathematical calculations which
support your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars.

MarkE is the out at first.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 16:13:01 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:51:36 +1100, the following appeared

Post by MarkE

Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 16:54:56 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

Please provide the mathematical calculations which support
your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars; no
"but it seems too long!" whining.

At some point this would need to be calculated and quantified, so valid
request.
My discussion at this stage though is a line of reasoning that in
principle may significantly reduce the presumed probabilistic resources
available for the formation of an autonomous protocell.
In summary the argument is: if a hypothesised little warm pond (or
thermal vent, etc) has virtually zero chance of producing this
P(OoL) = N_ponds x N_planets x P(protocell) x P(post-protocell)
If P(protocell) -> 0, then P(OoL) -> 0
Of course, it remains to be demonstrated that P(protocell) -> 0, but
would you agree with the logic of the argument?

Logic is worthless absent data, and can prove (or disprove)
nothing. Your argument is as valid as that of the Fermi
"Paradox" or arguments regarding the number of angels that
can dance on a pinpoint; i.e., of zero value without data.
So again, please provide the mathematical calculations which
support your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars.

MarkE is the out at first.

Apparently. And I had enough of this sort of idiotic
non-discussion with Peter, DocDoc et al. I'm through with
this one; three tries are enough.

[MarkE]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:51:36 +1100, the following appeared

Post by MarkE

Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 16:54:56 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

Please provide the mathematical calculations which support
your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars; no
"but it seems too long!" whining.

At some point this would need to be calculated and quantified, so valid
request.
My discussion at this stage though is a line of reasoning that in
principle may significantly reduce the presumed probabilistic resources
available for the formation of an autonomous protocell.
In summary the argument is: if a hypothesised little warm pond (or
thermal vent, etc) has virtually zero chance of producing this
P(OoL) = N_ponds x N_planets x P(protocell) x P(post-protocell)
If P(protocell) -> 0, then P(OoL) -> 0
Of course, it remains to be demonstrated that P(protocell) -> 0, but
would you agree with the logic of the argument?

Logic is worthless absent data, and can prove (or disprove)
nothing. Your argument is as valid as that of the Fermi
"Paradox" or arguments regarding the number of angels that
can dance on a pinpoint; i.e., of zero value without data.
So again, please provide the mathematical calculations which
support your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars.

You're avoiding the question. Establishing the overall logic and
assumptions of a hypothesis is sensible before investing in the heavy
lifting of numerically testing it.

[erik simpson]

Post by MarkE

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:51:36 +1100, the following appeared

Post by MarkE

Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 16:54:56 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of
self-synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell
naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

Please provide the mathematical calculations which support
your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars; no
"but it seems too long!" whining.

At some point this would need to be calculated and quantified, so valid
request.
My discussion at this stage though is a line of reasoning that in
principle may significantly reduce the presumed probabilistic resources
available for the formation of an autonomous protocell.
In summary the argument is: if a hypothesised little warm pond (or
thermal vent, etc) has virtually zero chance of producing this
P(OoL) = N_ponds x N_planets x P(protocell) x P(post-protocell)
If P(protocell) -> 0, then P(OoL) -> 0
Of course, it remains to be demonstrated that P(protocell) -> 0, but
would you agree with the logic of the argument?

Logic is worthless absent data, and can prove (or disprove)
nothing. Your argument is as valid as that of the Fermi
"Paradox" or arguments regarding the number of angels that
can dance on a pinpoint; i.e., of zero value without data.
So again, please provide the mathematical calculations which
support your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars.

You're avoiding the question. Establishing the overall logic and
assumptions of a hypothesis is sensible before investing in the heavy
lifting of numerically testing it.

No, you need numbers to make a complete hypothesis. Then you see if
it's plausible. It doesn't have to likely; plausible is enough.

[MarkE]

Post by MarkE

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:51:36 +1100, the following appeared

Post by MarkE

Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 16:54:56 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient
concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-
synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell
naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

Please provide the mathematical calculations which support
your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars; no
"but it seems too long!" whining.

At some point this would need to be calculated and quantified, so valid
request.
My discussion at this stage though is a line of reasoning that in
principle may significantly reduce the presumed probabilistic resources
available for the formation of an autonomous protocell.
In summary the argument is: if a hypothesised little warm pond (or
thermal vent, etc) has virtually zero chance of producing this
P(OoL) = N_ponds x N_planets x P(protocell) x P(post-protocell)
If P(protocell) -> 0, then P(OoL) -> 0
Of course, it remains to be demonstrated that P(protocell) -> 0, but
would you agree with the logic of the argument?

Logic is worthless absent data, and can prove (or disprove)
nothing. Your argument is as valid as that of the Fermi
"Paradox" or arguments regarding the number of angels that
can dance on a pinpoint; i.e., of zero value without data.
So again, please provide the mathematical calculations which
support your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars.

You're avoiding the question. Establishing the overall logic and
assumptions of a hypothesis is sensible before investing in the heavy
lifting of numerically testing it.

No, you need numbers to make a complete hypothesis.  Then you see if
it's plausible.  It doesn't have to likely; plausible is enough.

No. A hypothesis is by definition NOT "complete".

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 12:37:42 +1100, the following appeared

Post by MarkE

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:51:36 +1100, the following appeared

Post by MarkE

Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 16:54:56 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by MarkE
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

Please provide the mathematical calculations which support
your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars; no
"but it seems too long!" whining.

At some point this would need to be calculated and quantified, so valid
request.
My discussion at this stage though is a line of reasoning that in
principle may significantly reduce the presumed probabilistic resources
available for the formation of an autonomous protocell.
In summary the argument is: if a hypothesised little warm pond (or
thermal vent, etc) has virtually zero chance of producing this
P(OoL) = N_ponds x N_planets x P(protocell) x P(post-protocell)
If P(protocell) -> 0, then P(OoL) -> 0
Of course, it remains to be demonstrated that P(protocell) -> 0, but
would you agree with the logic of the argument?

Logic is worthless absent data, and can prove (or disprove)
nothing. Your argument is as valid as that of the Fermi
"Paradox" or arguments regarding the number of angels that
can dance on a pinpoint; i.e., of zero value without data.
So again, please provide the mathematical calculations which
support your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars.

You're avoiding the question. Establishing the overall logic and
assumptions of a hypothesis is sensible before investing in the heavy
lifting of numerically testing it.

Wrong. Logic (if not erroneous, tautological or specious)
can tell you what *might* be worth investigating, but
discussions of specifics prior to data acquisition through,
at a minimum, preliminary experiment and/or investigation,
are a waste of time*.

First idea, THEN investigation, and only then discussion of
the results of the investigation. Unless it's a late-night
beer party in the dorm, in which anything stupid and/or
useless is fair game.

*And speaking of wastes of time, I'm abandoning this one.

[Mark Isaak]

Post by MarkE

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:51:36 +1100, the following appeared

Post by MarkE
[...]
In summary the argument is: if a hypothesised little warm pond (or
thermal vent, etc) has virtually zero chance of producing this
P(OoL) = N_ponds x N_planets x P(protocell) x P(post-protocell)
If P(protocell) -> 0, then P(OoL) -> 0
Of course, it remains to be demonstrated that P(protocell) -> 0, but
would you agree with the logic of the argument?

Logic is worthless absent data, and can prove (or disprove)
nothing. Your argument is as valid as that of the Fermi
"Paradox" or arguments regarding the number of angels that
can dance on a pinpoint; i.e., of zero value without data.
So again, please provide the mathematical calculations which
support your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars.

You're avoiding the question. Establishing the overall logic and
assumptions of a hypothesis is sensible before investing in the heavy
lifting of numerically testing it.

What you call logic is, in fact, error. You are relying on the false
assumption that "unknown" = "impossible".

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 16:54:56 +1100
MarkE <***@gmail.com> wrote:
[]

Post by MarkE
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

It's even harder creating an omnipotent designer without leaving any trace
of it's creation. And going to the effort of putting false fossils all
around.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 10:27:55 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 16:54:56 +1100
[]

Post by MarkE
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.

It's even harder creating an omnipotent designer without leaving any trace
of it's creation. And going to the effort of putting false fossils all
around.

ID subscribers don't believe the designer to have been created.

Just as other Christians don't belive that God was created.