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

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@colewd

Solving homochirality alone will you 10000 bits.

I am always puzzled by statements like this.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

Knowing what it takes to get energy synthesis and self replication.

You know of every single chemical reaction that can synthesize energy and self replicate? Really? I highly doubt that.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

The evidence available to us.

The evidence you can’t produce. Round and round we go.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Rumraket

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.

First tell me why you think is was different?

@Rumraket

That’s a hand-wave. Be specific.

Venters experiments. Plus no known path from different chemicals than we are observing today plus the age of life we are observing.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

First tell me why you think is was different?

You are claiming that it can’t be different. Where is your evidence?

@colewd

Venters experiments. Plus no known path from different chemicals than we are observing today plus the age of life we are observing.

Venter’s experiment can’t tell us the bare minimum needed for life, as already shown. The organism he is using is 3 billion years removed from the first life, so it would be like removing parts from a 747 until it no longer flew in order to determine the minimum number of parts needed for an airplane.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

Venters experiments. Plus no known path from different chemicals than we are observing today plus the age of life we are observing.

The Saturn V rocket had over 3 million moving parts. That means there never could be any simpler rockets, even ancient Chinese gunpowder ones.

Right Bill?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

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.

The evidence I have is Venter’s experiments and not having any evidence of life with radically different chemicals.

You were not able the to make a positive claim that it was radically different so why the wild speculation?

Is it because without the simple to complex model your whole worldview is shattered?

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

The evidence I have is Venter’s experiments and not having any evidence of life with radically different chemicals.

So you have no evidence except what we know about extant life and extant proteins. Just as we said.

@colewd

Is it because without the simple to complex model your whole worldview is shattered?

As opposed to your POOF! MAGIC! created complexity argument?

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

The evidence I have is Venter’s experiments

That isn’t evidence, as already discussed.

@colewd

and not having any evidence of life with radically different chemicals.

You need evidence that life must have those chemicals. You must rule out all other possibilities, which you haven’t done.

@colewd

You were not able the to make a positive claim that it was radically different so why the wild speculation?

You are the one speculating that ATP is the only way for life to work.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

That isn’t evidence, as already discussed.

Why is it not evidence?

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

Why is it not evidence?

quoting from my previous post:

Venter’s experiment can’t tell us the bare minimum needed for life, as already shown. The organism he is using is 3 billion years removed from the first life, so it would be like removing parts from a 747 until it no longer flew in order to determine the minimum number of parts needed for an airplane.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

Venter’s experiment can’t tell us the bare minimum needed for life, as already shown. The organism he is using is 3 billion years removed from the first life, so it would be like removing parts from a 747 until it no longer flew in order to determine the minimum number of parts needed for an airplane.

How do you know it was different 3 billion years ago? What caused it to be different?

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

How do you know it was different 3 billion years ago?

You are assuming life was the same, without evidence.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

You are assuming life was the same, without evidence.

You are assuming it was different without evidence.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

You are assuming it was different without evidence.

I am making no such assumption since I am not the one making claims about calculating the probability of abiogenesis. You are making such claims. Your claims rest on the assumption that life was the same in the past, so the burden of proof rests on your claim. YOU need the evidence, not I.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

I am making no such assumption since I am not the one making claims about calculating the probability of abiogenesis. You are making such claims. Your claims rest on the assumption that life was the same in the past, so the burden of proof rests on your claim. YOU need the evidence, not I.

You made the original claim that the lottery fallacy solved the abiogenesis problem. .

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@colewd

First tell me why you think is was different?

The actual evidence from phylogenetic reconstructions of ancestral states in cellular life. Those very same methods used to see whether some protein is being conserved over deep time(that you are relying on to try to estimate FI) can also be used to infer ancestral genomes, the sequences and sizes of ancestral genes, and so on. You remember that part about not having your cake and eating it too?

So now you can explain to me what you think you know about “what it takes to get energy synthesis and self replication.”

You’ve still not told us.

@colewd

Venters experiments.

We’ve just been over this and you concede that “I am not making the claim it could not possibly be simpler.”

But now you appear to have completely reversed your position. So let’s go over 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.

@colewd

Plus no known path from different chemicals than we are observing today

No known path to what “from different chemicals”?(What does that even mean?)

Does our lack of knowledge of some path mean no such path exists or is possible?

@colewd

plus the age of life we are observing.

What about the age of observed life means no simpler forms of life are possible? Please explain how that follows.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Rumraket

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

I am not claiming they are not possible. Unfortunately your whole argument rests on the straw-man.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

You made the original claim that the lottery fallacy solved the abiogenesis problem. .

I made the original claim that you have to know all of the parameters and number of trials before you can claim that an outcome is improbable, and I used the lottery as an analogy to illustrate that point.

Now, where is your evidence that abiogenesis MUST involve ATP as you have claimed?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@colewd

I am not claiming they are not possible. Unfortunately your whole argument rests on the straw-man.

If you’re not saying life could not be simpler, then why are you insisting on basing your estimate of the probability of life’s origin on something you are conceding to not actually know whether is a requirement?