Origin of life status

[shunyadragon]

Wikipedia)


And are you familiar (I ask again) with five sigma? It's probability applied to science, notably to physics, were an event cannot be called a discovery until the probability(!) of it not happening is estimated to be more than five sigmas of standard deviation away from the mean.

Yes, the Null Hypothesis is widely used in science, nonetheless you are terribly, out of context, misusing Null Hypothesis. I used the Null hypothesis when I was in graduate school when testing. The Null Hypothesis is used in research to validate or reject a null hypothesis within a certain confidence level. It is not used in science as you propose to use it causing confusion.

[lee_merrill]

I'm just going to suggest you read further into that thread. The paper you were citing for your description of the catalytic RNA calculated the probability of its formation at 10³⁰ - rather substantially lower than yours. And you accepted that value for the remainder of the discussion.

Well, I was asked for my calculation.

Because the probability of assembly is directly proportional to the total volume of constituents formed. Think of it this way: what's the probability of finding iron oxide in your yard? What's the probability if you dump a ton of unprotected iron in the yard? It goes up, right? That's basic statistical mechanics.

But I've granted unlimited resources, unlimited constituents, all that is needed is assembly.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

I'm going to step back from the stupidity of these arguments to address the general issue here: can we ever say "we know enough right now to say this is too low probability to happen naturally?" I'd like to remind people of a little history.

Several decades ago, we knew of no catalytic RNAs; the RNA world didn't exist as a hypothesis.
A couple of decades ago, we didn't know of any catalytic RNAs that linked nucleotides into RNAs.
A bit over a decade ago, we identified the first RNA ligase ribozyme. It could link two RNA molecules together, but couldn't add in individual nucleotides.
About a decade ago, we discovered a variant of that ligase that could do limited copying of some template RNAs, but wasn't a general polymerase.
Later today, a paper will be released describing the first RNA polymerase ribozyme. It's too error prone to maintain itself stably at the moment, but its discoverers are continuing to evolve it.

And all of these require a ribozyme, which appears to be inordinately improbable to form.

If, at any point in this history, people had said "we know enough to say what the probability is", they would have been blatantly wrong. Yet that's precisely what Lee would have science do.

Well, not blatantly wrong. In all these scenarios, you still need major biomolecules to form randomly, which is the sticking point throughout.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

The Null Hypothesis is used in research to validate or reject a null hypothesis within a certain confidence level. It is not used in science as you propose to use it causing confusion.

I'm not proposing, I'm quoting how people in science use it, have you heard of five sigma? But nature is full of random processes, and you are denying this.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Next post. Is probability use in the science of evolution and abiogenesis? Yes.

[shunyadragon]

I'm not proposing, I'm quoting how people in science use it, have you heard of five sigma? But nature is full of random processes, and you are denying this.

Blessings,
Lee

Yes you are! If not why even bring it up?
They use it in design of research projects as I described, and NOT as you propose to use it.

[TheLurch]

Well, I was asked for my calculation.

Well, if you've been asked to provide a value that you already know is wrong, wouldn't the honest thing be to acknowledge that, and provide the right one?

But I've granted unlimited resources, unlimited constituents, all that is needed is assembly.

Then it's inevitable. Given enough time and enough raw materials, any low probability event will eventually occur.

You really don't get probabilities, do you?

[lee_merrill]

Well, if you've been asked to provide a value that you already know is wrong, wouldn't the honest thing be to acknowledge that, and provide the right one?

Well, I did call my estimate a back-of-the-envelope. But I would be glad to focus on Hubert Yockey's estimate or the estimate in this other paper.

Then it's inevitable. Given enough time and enough raw materials, any low probability event will eventually occur.

Then the question becomes, do we have enough time? Life appears almost (geologically speaking) immediately upon conditions being compatible with life.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

In the science of evolution probability is used to falsify hypothesis in calculating the rate of mutation using genetic algorithms in for example estimating genetic drift. What you have to have first a falsifiable hypothesis. For example:

Source: http://www.indiana.edu/~lynchlab/PDF/Lynch245.pdf

Genetic drift, selection and the evolution of the mutation rate

© Copyright Original Source

[TheLurch]

Well, I did call my estimate a back-of-the-envelope. But I would be glad to focus on Hubert Yockey's estimate or the estimate in this other paper.


Then the question becomes, do we have enough time? Life appears almost (geologically speaking) immediately upon conditions being compatible with life.

Even in geology, 400 million years is not "immediately".

[lee_merrill]

Even in geology, 400 million years is not "immediately".

But where are you getting 400 million years from?

Source: Wikipedia

The earliest known life forms on Earth are putative fossilized microorganisms found in hydrothermal vent precipitates.[1] The earliest time that life forms first appeared on Earth is at least 3.77 billion years ago, possibly as early as 4.28 billion years,[1] or even 4.5 billion years;[3][4] not long after the oceans formed 4.41 billion years ago, and after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.[1][2][5][6] The earliest direct evidence of life on Earth are microfossils of microorganisms permineralized in 3.465-billion-year-old Australian Apex chert rocks.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

But where are you getting 400 million years from?

Source: Wikipedia

The earliest known life forms on Earth are putative fossilized microorganisms found in hydrothermal vent precipitates.[1] The earliest time that life forms first appeared on Earth is at least 3.77 billion years ago, possibly as early as 4.28 billion years,[1] or even 4.5 billion years;[3][4] not long after the oceans formed 4.41 billion years ago, and after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.[1][2][5][6] The earliest direct evidence of life on Earth are microfossils of microorganisms permineralized in 3.465-billion-year-old Australian Apex chert rocks.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

None of these dates reflect 'immediately,' They are simply fossil evidence we have at present for the earliest life forms.

Life did form near the time that continental drift began and oceans formed, but the range in time is ~millions? of years by the present evidence. The pre-life necessary chemicals and desirable environment, of course, would exist in this time range, but there is no evidence that it happened 'immediately.'

It is possible that life formed in in a range of time from hot spring environments around early ocean floor spreading to actual early oceans, may be in the range of half a billion years. Simply life eventually did form sometime in this time frame.

[TheLurch]

But where are you getting 400 million years from?

Source: Wikipedia

The earliest known life forms on Earth are putative fossilized microorganisms found in hydrothermal vent precipitates.[1] The earliest time that life forms first appeared on Earth is at least 3.77 billion years ago, possibly as early as 4.28 billion years,[1] or even 4.5 billion years;[3][4] not long after the oceans formed 4.41 billion years ago, and after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.[1][2][5][6] The earliest direct evidence of life on Earth are microfossils of microorganisms permineralized in 3.465-billion-year-old Australian Apex chert rocks.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Always worth checking the actual references. For the "maybe 4.5 billion", one is a press release for a paper, the second is the actual paper, which simply says >3.9 billion years.

So, the gap between the formation of the earth and confirmed evidence is over 700 million years. 400 was a conservative estimate, allowing that life is probably older than the first clear evidence.

[lee_merrill]

Always worth checking the actual references. For the "maybe 4.5 billion", one is a press release for a paper, the second is the actual paper, which simply says >3.9 billion years.

So, the gap between the formation of the earth and confirmed evidence is over 700 million years. 400 was a conservative estimate, allowing that life is probably older than the first clear evidence.

Did you notice this, though?

Source:

We find that the last universal common ancestor of cellular life (LUCA) predated the end of late heavy bombardment (>3.9 Ga)

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Though they say that the late heavy bombardment would not have sterilized the planet, this indicates that life got an early start, under hostile conditions, even.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Did you notice this, though?

Source:

We find that the last universal common ancestor of cellular life (LUCA) predated the end of late heavy bombardment (>3.9 Ga)

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Though they say that the late heavy bombardment would not have sterilized the planet, this indicates that life got an early start, under hostile conditions, even.

Blessings,
Lee

'. . . under most horrible conditions,even.' represents your over the top religious agenda not science. The scientific evidence in the beginnings of the ocean and the mid ocean ridge may be severe by our comfortable standards, but it was the same environment that occurs now in the mid ocean ridge of today's oceans, a rather severe environment where we could not survive.

This selective bias with a religious agenda does not equate to 'immediate,' but yes, millions of years. Yes the bombardment did not sterilize the planet, but most likely delivered the necessary amino acids for the formation, found in meteorites and nit naturally present on earth, for the first life. The problem remains the phony dishonest use of probability concluding abiogenesis taking place cannot put any sort of 'time limit' of your bogus claim of improbability to the point of not possibly, actually impossible, to happen as in your response here:

The way your argument works is to try to find the most probable path, and then argue that the probability is still too low to occur naturally.

Yes.