Faith in mechanisms that would be outside our reach and understanding (as a matter of principle)

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@colewd

@Rumraket

We know the chemicals of extant life.

Does that prove simpler forms of life could not exist, or that it was not simpler in the past?

It’s the data we have.

So what? Please explain how it follows from the fact that life today is made of these chemicals, that it had to begin with 470 genes?

@colewd

On what bases do you believe life forms were simpler.

Phylogenetic evidence, as I already explained to you. The very same evidence you use to try to estimate FI of some protein sequence, and you use to try to infer conservation over some time period. Compare gene sets and gene sequences of different organisms, map them onto a phylogenetic tree, and infer the history of change from that. The exact same thing shows that life used to be simpler than what it is today. That metabolic pathways used to be simpler, that the translation system used to be simpler, that individual proteins and the molecular machines we see in extant organisms used to be simpler.
We can even infer the ancestral distribution in the frequency of amino acids used in the oldest known proteins(some of them from a time before the last universal common ancestor), and it is a remarkable fact that the distribution as we go further and further back in time increasingly reflects the distribution we get when scientists simulate abiotic chemical reactions such as in spark-discharge experiments, simulated hydrothermal systems, and found in carbonaceous chondrite meteorites.
For the latter part about amino acids see for example:
Evolution of Amino Acid Frequencies in Proteins Over Deep Time: Inferred Order of Introduction of Amino Acids into the Genetic Code.
A universal trend of amino acid gain and loss in protein evolution.
A Thermodynamic Basis for Prebiotic Amino Acid Synthesis and the Nature of the First Genetic Code.

@colewd

@Rumraket

Yeah they evolve. What does that have to do with how simple life was in the past, or how simple it could be?

Proteins a formed from DNA sequences translated to Amino Acid sequences. Proteins evolving is your assumption which has little empirical support.

This is nothing short of denial of observational reality Bill. There are numerous threads on this very forum that shows how proteins can evolve by empirical experiment. So no, it’s not an assumption.

So I ask again, what is it about proteins evolving that makes you think that you can assume life had to start with 470 genes?

@colewd

@Rumraket

@colewd

We know a lot about the cell cycle.

What does that have to do with how simple life was in the past, or how simple it could be?

The process of converting an energy source like glucoses to to generating ATP is complex.

So what? You are aware that many organisms live without glucose, right?

You’re not even trying to answer the questions I put to you now. You’re just saying stuff that doesn’t even appear tangentially relevant.

@colewd

@Rumraket

I agree, we know more today than we did 150 years ago. What does that have to do with how simple life was in the past, or how simple it could be?

We know what the cell looks like across many species and there is little fundamental variation on energy conversion and protein synthesis.

Again you’re just waving your hand vaguely. Explain what it is about “energy conversion and protein synthesis” that makes you think life had to start out with 470 genes please.

You’re just making stuff up now Bill, saying whatever random nonsense that appears to come to your mind.

@colewd

@Rumraket

Are you talking about Venter’s experiments again?

Explain how it follows from venter whittling away genes until he fails to detect growth, that no simpler forms of life are possible?

It shows a real limitation for increasing populations.

There’s a limit to how many genes you can remove from some organism before it stops being able to grow. I agree. How does it follow from that, that life had to start out with 470 genes?