Then how does it follow that the origin of life would have to spontaneously produce an organism with 470 genes?
Why, in your attempt to estimate the probability of the origin of life, are you trying to claim it has to have begun with the spontaneous appearance of a bacterium with 470 genes?
If you’re not saying life could not be simpler, then why are you insisting on basing your estimate of life’s origin on something you are conceding to not actually know whether is a requirement?
Then how can you make claims about the probabilities of abiogenesis if you don’t know how simple life can be?
The available data does not tell us how simple life can be, so you have nothing to base these calculations on.
How did you determine the minimum number of functions required to sustain life? Where are there references for this? If this was known it would be one of the most important scientific papers written in the last 100 years, so I highly doubt that some ill-informed poster with zero publicaions posting on an internet forum knows what the answer is.
My estimate has plenty of head room.
That answers none of the questions I posed to you.
Your estimate is completely made up.
Lets start with the requirements
-Ability the synthesize amino acids
-Ability to generate ATP
-Ability to self replicate reliably
etc
473 genes does all this pretty cool.
You need to support accusations like this.
You haven’t shown that any of these are requirements.
My accusation is supported by your complete inability to supply a single relevant probability calculation based on demonstrable facts.
We’re done guys.
Your argument was done before you started Bill. All you ever do is duck its fatal problems.
Is that a fundamental requirement for life? How do you know?
You keep tripping over the same bias. You think the life we see is the only way to do life. Is there any reason to think that life has to use ATP, or amino acids? No. ATP could be one of many simple precursor chemicals that could supply the energy needed for the first life, and it just so happens that life on Earth happened to stumble on ATP out of all the possibilities. Is there any reason to think that the first life on Earth had to use amino acids? No. Ribozymes exist, as do PNA’s (peptide nucleic acids).
It’s as if you think the Wright brothers could not have invented the airplane because turbine engines did not exist in the early 1900’s. After all, if you remove the turbine engines from a 747 it can’t fly, so all planes must use turbine engines, right?
I do think this is very close to the way life has always been. I think Venter’s numbers are pretty close.
What is the evidence you have that it has been radically different?
Why do think that?
What do you base that on?
The evidence available to us. Knowing what it takes to get energy synthesis and self replication. What makes you think it was different?
Scientific laws are human constructs. No, of course we don’t expect them to make life.
That’s a hand-wave. Be specific.
You know that? Please tell us what you know (and how) about what it takes to get “energy synthesis”(what do you even mean by that?) and self replication.
Again, you keep tripping over the same bias. You assume, with no justification, that the life we see is the only way to do life.
If you thought the moon was made of cheese it wouldn’t suddenly turn into cheese. Reality is not forced to conform to what you think. You need evidence, not opinions.
You are making the claim that the way in which life works is the only way to do life. Where is the evidence to back this claim? If you have no evidence, then you can’t use that assumption to make any claims about the probability of abiogenesis.
I have no idea what the requirements are for abiogenesis. None. You claim you do know, so it is up to you to back your claims with evidence. If you claim that ATP is necessary, then prove it. Simply pointing to the fact that life uses ATP in no way supports your claim.