That’s not the way macromolecules work in concert.
1 Like
actually the chance of finding a functional gene (with a complex function) is near zero. this is because we need a functional code to be exist in the first place before evolution\abiogenesis can work. genes for wings for instance are clearly the product of design. so we need to calculate not only the chance to find it in the sequence space but also the chance to find it at all.
- How do you get macromoleclueless.
- How do you get the right macromolecules.
- How do you get them to work in concert.
That’s been tried and found wanting. 
Nope, you were not mistaken. That was his clear and frequently, stridently emphasized point. His message was not only that they haven’t got a clue, but also, some people are lying to you when they try to make you think they do have a clue.
Those are my paraphrases, but that was his message. Loud. And. Clear.
1 Like
Yea, he kept the birds.
1 Like
I love the Freudian slip. I tip my cap your way…
Simple answer - chemistry. I believe others have given many pointers that elaborate, and I am too lazy to add anything here other than to thank the other contributors.
As I just explained above, in a situation with even a minimal amount of chemistry going on, if macromolecules are being made, then even dilute solutions will have all of the “right” ones.
Most polypeptides will have inherent tendencies to bind (if weakly) with others. RNAs even moreso. The limitations here would be binding constants, which may range over many orders of magnitude, probably towards the parts of the scale that would not favor efficient binding. But the occasional high-affinity interaction would not be so affected, as it were.
These are all general considerations, mentioned to point out that there are no inherent, general, or universal aspects of chemistry that may be invoked to rule out, a priori, a chemical route to the origin of life. If one wants to argue thusly, one must first know what the path was, and which steps in particular (I repeat - known, confirmed, accepted steps) are precluded by the rules of chemistry.
1 Like
How does God do it?
The double standard is thus revealed.
…for our enjoyment.
Yeah we don’t have a model to explain How god does things unless you count the simulation hypothesis, in which case: it is as easy as using Adobe photoshop I guess; that’s why I restrict myself to evaluating the naturalistic hypothesis.
No, that was some low-level vitriol/joke. I guess I shouldn’t do that here but I was curious if you would notice.
Then give us the simulation hypothesis. Explain how life originates in the simulation.
I can’t comment on what kind of Engine God would use to run the simulation, if that’s okay then I could give it a go.
Well if all it takes to account for the origin of life is to make shit up, then I could do the same.
1 Like
How God does something may or may not be knowable to humans. But the real question to ask is did He do it. That He did it can be knowable through looking at the relevant evidence and exploring the metaphysical possibilities that He would be the best explanation for the reality we experience and the related evidence to the question at hand. If there is no known natural cause, that I would say is a good starting point to suggest that He did it.
2 Likes
It’s a little more complicated than that. As long as players in the sym can log out&log back in (which is what near-death experiences are) we would have an independent way of evaluating this premise.
Consider Plato’s analogy of th cave.
I would say only if you’re talking scientifically. But I think no known natural causes is justification to move outside the realm of science and into the realm of metaphysics.
I’m talking about observational science.
Yes, that would be true in observational science. But the way I understand it, in metaphysics it has to be shown that something is metaphysically possible, probable, and plausible. If it passes those tests then it would qualify as a warranted explanation.