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.
On 10/12/2024 2:35 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 16:54:56 +1100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
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 ofPlease provide the mathematical calculations which support
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.
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?
On 10/12/2024 2:35 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 16:54:56 +1100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
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 ofPlease provide the mathematical calculations which support
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.
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?
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?
On 2024-12-14 6:04 a.m., MarkE wrote:
[big snip]
For argument's sake, let's say that is true.
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?
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'?
On 14/12/2024 4:19 am, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:51:36 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
On 10/12/2024 2:35 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:Logic is worthless absent data, and can prove (or disprove)
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 16:54:56 +1100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
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.Please provide the mathematical calculations which support
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.
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?
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.
On 12/13/24 9:19 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:51:36 +1100, the following appearedMarkE is the out at first.
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
On 10/12/2024 2:35 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:Logic is worthless absent data, and can prove (or disprove)
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 16:54:56 +1100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
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.Please provide the mathematical calculations which support
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.
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?
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.
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 08:46:26 -0800, erik simpson
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/14/24 8:23 AM, DB Cates wrote:
On 2024-12-14 6:04 a.m., MarkE wrote:If it's explainable, there's little difference between invoking god(s)
[big snip]
For argument's sake, let's say that is true.
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?
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'?
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!
On 12/14/24 11:53 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 17:52:14 +0000, the following appearedActually people have been getting dumber since ancient Egypt. Medical >treatment is much more effective, and defective (in all ways) people now >survive.
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<[email protected]>:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 08:46:26 -0800, erik simpsonI.e., the same class of "logic" propounded by a (thankfully
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/14/24 8:23 AM, DB Cates wrote:
On 2024-12-14 6:04 a.m., MarkE wrote:If it's explainable, there's little difference between invoking god(s) >>>> or looking for natural causes. Many scientists believe in god, and
[big snip]
For argument's sake, let's say that is true.
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?
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'?
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!
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...)
On 16/12/2024 1:53 am, Martin Harran wrote:
<snip>
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.
On 14/12/2024 7:31 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 16:41:25 +1100, MarkE <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
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."
On 14/12/2024 4:19 am, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:51:36 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
[...]Logic is worthless absent data, and can prove (or disprove)
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?
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.
On 17/12/2024 6:33 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
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
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!
On 19/12/2024 3:16 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/17/24 5:12 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 17/12/2024 6:33 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
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.
- 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:
[...]
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?
#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.
[..
Let me pose a question to you (similar to Martin Harran):
If after 10,000 years of concerted OoL research (say), all conceivable natural explanations and pathways have been deemed implausible (say),
then we have these options:
1. Keep looking for natural causes only
2. Give up looking
3. Keep looking for natural causes, but consider supernatural agency
4. Give up looking for natural causes, but consider supernatural agency
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 26:26:26 |
| Calls: | 12,106 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,193 |