Explaining the Cancer Information Calculation

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@ETVB

Let me make sure I understand you. Are you basically saying that becasue we don’t know for sure what is required for the most basic life, we can’t really make a judgement about what it must be comprised of?

Yes. And I would modify “not knowing for sure” into “basically having no clue”. When we basically have no clue what is required for life, we can’t make a judgement call about what it must be comprised of.

@ETVB

Perhaps I can pose the question another way: Is there any known life that does not consist of these elements (nuceotides, carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids)? If not, wouldn’t it be pure speculation to say that possibly they aren’t required?

Yes, it would be pure speculation to say they possibly aren’t required, and it would be pure speculation to say they are required. The fact that they are used by life as we know it, doesn’t mean they are required for life.

And we have evidence that there are fundamental processes in life as we know it, that can function without complex protein machines and enzymes and modern cell membranes. Again, vesicles made of simpler fatty acids and related compounds are semi-permeable to small mollecules and ions. Some fundamental metabolic reactions have been shown to not require enzymes to catalyze them, as simple inorganic minerals, and metals, can catalyze them.

Our ignorance of what can and does happen in nature really is rather astounding. No, life using something now doesn’t mean life can’t exist without it, at all.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@ETVB

@sfmatheson

My question for you, then remains: why do you prefer these ill-informed apologists to actual experts in science? I don’t expect or even want an answer. It’s an exhortation.

I’d be curious to hear @swamidass’s opinion here… Joshua, do you think Tour is an ill-informed apologist, ignorant of the biology and chemistry involved in OOL research?

I do not think Tour is an apologist and ignorant. That should be clear.

---

Speaking more broadly, I’m concerned about the tone on this thread.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@ETVB

FOUR MOLECULES are needed for life: nucleotides, carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids.

Don’t you think it’s a bit naive to present life as a collection of molecules without metabolism?

What about metabolism-first hypotheses? Do either Meyer or Tour address them at all?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Mercer

Do either Meyer or Tour address them at all?

Tour doesn’t anywhere that I have seen. To be fair, I’m not actively hunting down every last thing he ever said or wrote.

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@ETVB

But aren’t we talking about specific events? The origin of life requires very specific things to happen in order for the first cell to appear.

@ETVB

@Roy

For example, which RNA sequences need to form, and from what? Which molecular machinery is needed? Why does it have to be that particular molecular machinery and not a completely different set?

Those are the questions. We don’t know which sequences and maybe not even what machines, but we know their chemical building blocks. Can we even realistically get the building blocks to form naturally?

Yes, those are the questions. We don’t currently know what sequences are needed. We don’t know what type of sequences are needed. We don’t even know whether a particular type is needed, or if there are lots off possible types of sequences that would work. So your earlier claim that:

The origin of life requires very specific things to happen in order for the first cell to appear.

… is unjustified.