Origin of life status

[lee_merrill]

You may disagree, but not based on science. The scientist only agree that the problems are a basis for new hypothesis to resolve the questions concerning abiogenesis, and foolish barriers with a religious agenda in a vain attempt to disprove natural abiogenesis based on a religious agenda.

I responded specifically to your papers, now it would be appropriate to hear something specific from you, in reply.

Blessings,
Lee

[rogue06]

Well, if a natural explanation is improbable, then we are left with supernatural explanations.

Blessings,
Lee

It is highly improbable to be dealt a royal flush in a game of poker but it does happen^[1]. In fact whatever hand you are dealt the odds against getting it is astronomical. But that doesn't mean that you immediately turn to a supernatural explanation.





1. It happened to me when I was first learning how to play the game.

[shunyadragon]

Well, if a natural explanation is improbable, then we are left with supernatural explanations.

Blessings,
Lee

Improbability does not apply to natural laws and processes. Something can be improbable but given billions of years it is likely to happen a number of times. It is more of a juggling act by those that misuse statistics and probability to justify an agenda

The articles cited described the problems that needed to be solve regarding the origins of chirility, and not the probability. Science does not deal in probabilities, because they cannot be reliably determined, except with unscientific assumptions as Behe does.

[shunyadragon]

I responded specifically to your papers, now it would be appropriate to hear something specific from you, in reply.

Blessings,
Lee

The conclusions of the papers needed to be responded to by you and not selected citations taken out of context, which was proposed problem solving of the unknowns, and how all science works. The following gives more insight into this problem solving process.

Source: https://www.quantamagazine.org/chiral-key-found-to-origin-of-life-20141126/

Right-Handed Reign

If chirality emerged sometime after the origins of life, the question remains: Why did right-handed RNA win? Left- and right-handed molecules have chemically identical properties, so there’s no obvious reason for one to triumph.

Joyce and others suspect it’s simply chance. Say a ribozyme capable of transforming a pool of mixed nucleic acids into left- and right-handed RNAs appeared on the early Earth. It would produce two distinct groups, lefties and righties, which in turn might have functioned like competing populations. “If the right hand stumbles on useful mutations and runs away with the game, then the other side of the mirror can go dark,” Joyce said. For example, the right-handed group of RNAs might have developed some kind of competitive advantage, such as producing proteins, eventually overtaking the left-handed group and generating the bias we see today.

There is only one way to truly determine whether one hand is superior: Build life forms that twist in each direction and evaluate them side by side. George Church and collaborators at Harvard are aiming to do just that. If they can make mirror versions of all the cells’ parts, they can construct synthetic cells and compare otherwise identical left- and right-handed versions of life.

To create mirror-image RNAs, Church and his collaborators first need to make mirror enzymes capable of stitching together mirror building blocks. Michael Kay’s team at the University of Utah has almost finished developing a method for chemically synthesizing an ordinary version of one such enzyme. Once completed, the two teams will apply the same approach to make a mirror enzyme capable of assembling mirror RNAs. Church and others are also building tools to detect mirror life, which could prove important when searching for signs of life on other planets.

Joyce remains interested in making life from scratch. Everything else, including the chirality problem, is just a hurdle toward that larger prize, he said.

The new ribozyme may provide the best shot yet. It nearly fulfills the most basic properties of life — the ability to replicate and to evolve. “They went so far as to show the mirror image can copy itself,” Chaput said. “That gets very close to replication.” The next step will be to make that happen iteratively. “If you look in the mirror, make a copy, then put yourself in the mirror, and make a copy of the person in the mirror, then you have replication,” Chaput said.

That iterative process opens the possibility for evolution, as mistakes made during copying will allow the molecule to evolve new traits. “The real key to all of it has been setting up a system in the lab capable of evolution on its own,” Unrau said. “Jerry is close.”

Editor’s Note: Donna Blackmond, Gerald Joyce and Jack Szostak receive funding from the Simons Foundation as Simons Investigators.

© Copyright Original Source

[lee_merrill]

It is highly improbable to be dealt a royal flush in a game of poker but it does happen. In fact whatever hand you are dealt the odds against getting it is astronomical. But that doesn't mean that you immediately turn to a supernatural explanation.

But in this case there is a perfectly good natural explanation, it's when natural explanations fail that we then turn to the supernatural.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Improbability does not apply to natural laws and processes. Something can be improbable but given billions of years it is likely to happen a number of times. It is more of a juggling act by those that misuse statistics and probability to justify an agenda.

But we don't have billions of years for life to form, almost immediately (geologically speaking) after conditions were available that support life, we have life.

The articles cited described the problems that needed to be solve regarding the origins of chirility, and not the probability. Science does not deal in probabilities, because they cannot be reliably determined, except with unscientific assumptions as Behe does.

Science can deal with probabilities, though.

Source: Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life

The origin of life is unsolvable as a scientific problem.

© Copyright Original Source

And Hubert Yockey is no friend of Intelligent Design.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

But in this case there is a perfectly good natural explanation, it's when natural explanations fail that we then turn to the supernatural.

Blessings,
Lee

Fro natural explanations to fail(?) you wold need a falsifiable theory or hypothesis demonstrating that natural explanations fail, which would mean you would have to falsify the negative, which is impossible.

[shunyadragon]

But we don't have billions of years for life to form, almost immediately (geologically speaking) after conditions were available that support life, we have life.


Science can deal with probabilities, though.

Source: Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life

The origin of life is unsolvable as a scientific problem.

© Copyright Original Source

And Hubert Yockey is no friend of Intelligent Design.

Blessings,
Lee

Hubert Yockey is not in the fields related to evolution nore abiogenesis. He is a physicist and works primarily in information theory, and yes despite denials he is an advocate that abiogenesis and evolution cannot come about naturally. Absolutely nothing here in terms of the actual 'positive' falsification of theories not hypothesis concerning the whether abiogenesis nor evolution is possible. The results of his work are not accepted in the fields of biology and genetics related to abiogenesis and evolution.

His work is also dated and does not reflect the contemporary advances in abiogenesis and evolution.

[lee_merrill]

Fro natural explanations to fail(?) you wold need a falsifiable theory or hypothesis demonstrating that natural explanations fail, which would mean you would have to falsify the negative, which is impossible.

All that needs to be shown is that abiogenesis is improbable, no need to show that it is impossible. So then the question becomes, do we know enough of natural processes, to be able to estimate the probability of abiogenesis? Hubert Yockey would say yes, we do, and his arguments would then need to be addressed, specifically.

Blessings,
Lee

[Roy]

Exploring mysteries is fine, I think we know enough about life to be able to estimate a bound on the probability of it forming naturally, and that probability bound is very low.

So? The anthropic principle and a posteriori probabilities render this moot.

[Roy]

Well, if a natural explanation is improbable, then we are left with supernatural explanations.

But supernatural explanations are even more improbable, so we are left with no explanations at all.

[lee_merrill]

So? The anthropic principle and a posteriori probabilities render this moot.

But which probabilities do you mean? And the anthropic principle doesn't prove anything, unless you assume that the supernatural is impossible.

Blessings,
Lee

[rogue06]

But in this case there is a perfectly good natural explanation, it's when natural explanations fail that we then turn to the supernatural.

Blessings,
Lee

So we return yet again to the God of the gaps approach

[shunyadragon]

All that needs to be shown is that abiogenesis is improbable, no need to show that it is impossible.

There is no objective verifiable evidence that it is improbable. IT is only speculation based on unethical use of statistics as previously cited in a number of previous threads. Do I need to post it again?!?!?!

So then the question becomes, do we know enough of natural processes, to be able to estimate the probability of abiogenesis? Hubert Yockey would say yes, we do, and his arguments would then need to be addressed, specifically.

Blessings,
Lee

The arguments of Hubert Yockey's unethical use of probability and statistics, by the way the same as ID advocates, have been addressed before several times with references.

Abiogenesis nor evolution are based on 'objective verifiable evidence' and progressive research and discoveries, and not estimates of probabilities. No objective verifiable evidence based on a 'positive' falsifiable hypothesis supported by science has been presented to support the Yockey's assertions and those of the ID assertions.

Still waiting . . .

[shunyadragon]

All that needs to be shown is that abiogenesis is improbable, no need to show that it is impossible. So then the question becomes, do we know enough of natural processes, to be able to estimate the probability of abiogenesis? Hubert Yockey would say yes, we do, and his arguments would then need to be addressed, specifically.

Blessings,
Lee

The possibility of falsifying a negative hypothesis is impossible to support that assertion of improbability, and not demonstrating that abiogenesis nor evolution is impossible nor improbabile, which is not a scientific hypothesis