Rumraket: Response to Dr. Tour on Abiogenesis

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Ronald_Cram

It matters because Tour wrote “We know…” I’m simply supplying some quotes by others in the know.

But there isn’t anything that anyone knows that substantiates Tour’s conclusion. If I’m wrong, please provide that evidence.

Tour is not the only one making these claims.

That we know from chemistry that life should not exist? Perhaps not. But I’m not interested in how many people repeat the claim, I’m interested in the argument and the evidence. Rather than tell me about how accomplished and how many of these people there are, which you are weirdly wasting an inordinate amount of time on, I wonder why you don’t just proceed to the evidence.

The appeal to popularity, and the appeal to authority, are still fallacies.

The next step in the process is to examine the evidence that caused these different scientists to make these claims.

No, that would have been the first step. Rather than blather about utter irrelevancies, just bring the evidence. For the majority of human history it was believed that the Sun was a sentient being, a God, that dove into a tunnel to the underworld to do battle with the forces of darkness, and emerged victorious every morning. The vast majority of humans who have ever lived have believed this. And it’s false.

So, evidence. Got any?

I asked Mikkel if he knew about the the discovery Hoyle made that shook his atheism to the core. Mikkel has no interest in looking at the evidence.

I have no interest in conversion stories and appeals to authority. I’m not here to discuss people’s personal lives, their psychology, or their beliefs. I’m here to speak about arguments and evidence. It’s amazing that you don’t just provide it.

He made some remark about “Hoyle’s howlers” but the discovery he made earned his co-researcher a Nobel Prize.

Holy shirt, really? I feel like I’m about to change my mind… nah, I’m just kidding. I’m going to want to see evidence for the claim that chemistry says life should not exist. Not these irrelevant stories about what prizes they won.

It’s hardly an insignificant discovery in the history of science.

Maybe it’s an amazing discovery. Does it show that chemistry says that life should not exist?

If Mikkel is not interested in looking at the evidence, there’s nothing I can do about it.

You could provide the evidence regardless of what you mistakenly believe about me? By all means, why hold back evidence because you think one person isn’t interested? Perhaps others could benefit? Rather than waste line after line of text on irrelevancies.

It’s amazing how much you want to squeeze the popularity and authority lemon first, rather than just provide this mysterious evidence you’ve hinted at. It makes me suspect the evidence is actually incredibly weak, if not outright nonexistant.

[T.j_Runyon]

@Rumraket

appeal to authority, are still fallacies.

There can be a valid argument from authority and majority if most people in that field agree and are actually in that field. We have been given no reason to think that though yet

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@T.j_Runyon

There can be a valid argument from authority and majority if most people in that field agree and are actually in that field.

An argument from authority only works if the authority has actual evidence. It is not their mere saying so, no matter how many they are, that demonstrates the truth of the claim. When a scientific consensus has been reached it is (normally, presumably) because good evidence led to that. That means lots of published studies have accumulated, detailing all the relevant arguments and evidence which can be brought to bear to substantiate that, indeed, there is force behind the consensus that makes a potential appeal to their authority valid. And if anyone ever asks, that evidence can be cited, rather than making the appeal to authority.

Tour’s claim, and Ronald’s support of it is also a bit ironic given how we’re constantly told that science shows that the laws of physics are “fine tuned for life”. Go figure. Fine tuned to make life chemically possible to exist, but impossible to originate? Seems a wee bit like having your cake and eating it too.

All that said, Ronald has some evidence to provide. Not more appeals to authority, popularity, status, or accomplishments. Evidence.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Rumraket

An argument from authority only works if the authority has actual evidence. It is not their mere saying so, no matter how many they are, that demonstrates the truth of the claim.

I agree with this. Opinions are just opinions its evidence that matters.

[Ronald_Cram]

@Timothy_Horton

Where is your evidence Tour or the others “in the know” are correct? All they offered was ignorance based personal incredulity. All you’re doing is repeating their ignorance based claims.

Not true. They are not speaking about ignorance. They are speaking about what they know. If you want to know what evidence brought them to this state of knowledge, that requires more work. Fred Hoyle worked for a long time and made several important discoveries. For example, Hoyle’s work on the Triple Alpha Process eventually won a Nobel Prize for William Fowler. That was certainly one of the discoveries that caused him to say and write what he said and wrote.

See Triple-alpha process - Wikipedia

[Mung]

@Rumraket

So, evidence. Got any?

Careful there Mr. Atheist Molecular Biology Technician Sealion.

[Ronald_Cram]

@Rumraket

You also complained that Dr. Tour doesn’t know what the first life looked like. That’s true. But then neither do you.

Then we are done, really. James Tour’s conclusion can not be supported. You can’t say that something you don’t know the properties of cannot come to exist.

No, the issue here is that while Tour may not know the requirements, he is at least operating on evidence while you are not. You have no empirical evidence that life could exist while being simpler than the simplest forms of life available to us today. You are operating on hope and dream and fairy dust. When I said you have no evidence of simpler life forms, you wrote:

@Rumraket

Actually I do. There is actually some evidence of a simpler stage of life. Not much, but it is there and can’t just be ignored. Hints from phylogenetics of a simpler time, before cells had evolved the biosynthetic pathways for making their own amino acids.

I requested papers and you said you had provided links in the OP. I only saw one link in the OP and it doesn’t address this question at all.

[Mung]

@Rumraket

But we DON’T know that. This straight up commits the fallacy of begging the question. It might be that Tour thinks we have good reason for thinking this, but as we shall see, he presents none.

Tour’s case fails at the level of reason. We don’t even get to consider the chemistry, Tour’s conclusion is logically unreachable and not even weakly implied by the facts he cite.

He provides his reasons in the sentences immediately following his opening statement.

[Ronald_Cram]

@Rumraket

An argument from authority only works if the authority has actual evidence. It is not their mere saying so, no matter how many they are, that demonstrates the truth of the claim.

I agree with this. I have no real faith in scientific consensus. When I listed off a number of quotes, it wasn’t to get you to bow to their authority as scientists. It was to pique your interest in the evidence that caused them to say that. I asked you if you knew what discoveries Hoyle had made that caused him to make his statement and you showed zero interest in the evidence. I think you only want evidence if you think it may support your side.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Ronald_Cram

No, the issue here is that while Tour may not know the requirements, he is at least operating on evidence while you are not.

Then please provide me with that evidence.

You have no empirical evidence that life could exist while being simpler than the simplest forms of life available to us today.

Actually I do, and I cited that evidence in my response to you. Please read that post again.

But even were I not to actually have that evidence, Tour’s conclusion still wouldn’t follow. If James Tour does not know that there could not be a simpler form of life, which you admit that he doesn’t, then the claim that chemistry has shown that life should not exist simply doesn’t follow.

You are operating on hope and dream and fairy dust.

I know that this is what you like to tell yourself but I am operating simply on reason.

@Ronald_Cram

I requested papers and you said you had provided links in the OP.

No Ronald, I didn’t say they were in the OP. They are in the very post of mine you are quoting.

You quote me writing the following: “Actually I do. There is actually some evidence of a simpler stage of life. Not much, but it is there and can’t just be ignored. Hints from phylogenetics of a simpler time, before cells had evolved the biosynthetic pathways for making their own amino acids.”

What follows from this is an explanation of that evidence, AND then the papers. Ronald, please read that post again.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Mung

He provides his reasons in the sentences immediately following his opening statement.

And as I go on to point out, none of these purported reasons for concluding as he does are logically valid.

The fact that Tour seems to think they’re good reasons for taking his conclusion doesn’t mean they are. Sure, he states “reasons”, as in he invokes various points which are purported to substantiate the conclusion. But when I say he presents no good reasons for accepting that conclusion, I mean reasons which entail or imply the conclusion he states. The arbiter of that is conforming to valid logical reasoning from true premises to conclusions that logically follow, or are strongly implied.

If someone says “I have reason for this conclusion, it’s that I like it”, is that a reason for concluding as he does? Sure, the reason is that he likes the conclusion. Is that a good reason, a scientific reason? No. We are trying to establish whether chemistry has shown that life should not exist. That is the point of contention. That’s not a matter of mere opinion. That means we need to see some evidence which either logically entails, or strongly implies it.

[Ronald_Cram]

Sorry I missed the links you provided, but these papers do not tell us that we understand how simple the earliest life form was. Even if we could “infer the protein complement of the Last Universal Ancestor (LUA),” that does not tell us everything we want to know.

Perhaps the earliest life form had fewer proteins, does that mean it doesn’t need bi-layer cell membrane as Tour pointed? Does it mean the cell can live without organelles? Does it mean the cell can live with the numerous subsystems cells today have? You are making claims you cannot support.

[Mung]

@Rumraket

And as I go on to point out, none of these purported reasons for concluding as he does are logically valid.

Your claim was that he gave no reasons for his views. Or did you mean that he gives no good reasons?

And you understand, I hope, that it is arguments that are valid or invalid, not reasons.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Ronald_Cram

Sorry I missed the links you provided, but these papers do not tell us that we understand how simple the earliest life form was.

I agree, they leave many, many questions unanswered.

Even if we could “infer the protein complement of the Last Universal Ancestor (LUA),” that does not tell us everything we want to know.

You will hear nothing but complete agreement with that from me.

Perhaps the earliest life form had fewer proteins, does that mean it doesn’t need bi-layer cell membrane as Tour pointed?

If the earliest form of life had fewer proteins, it wouldn’t automatically follow that it didn’t need a bi-layer membrane. I agree. That doesn’t follow.

Does it mean the cell can live without organelles?

That also doesn’t follow. Correct.

Does it mean the cell can live with the numerous subsystems cells today have?

You mean without, I guess. No, that also wouldn’t follow.

You are making claims you cannot support.

What claim have I made that I cannot support? Quote it.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Mung

Or did you mean that he gives no good reasons?

Yes. I even used that word, good.

As I wrote: “It might be that Tour thinks we have good reason for thinking this, but as we shall see, he presents none.” So what I mean is he provided no good reasons.

And you understand, I hope, that it is arguments that are valid or invalid, not reasons.

Sure. So what I’m essentially saying is that Tour gives no good arguments.

[Mung]

@Rumraket

We don’t even get to consider the chemistry

How convenient.

IOW, we’ll ignore the evidence because he is making a deductive argument, and his conclusion doesn’t follow deductively from his premises. What if he isn’t making a deductive argument?

@Rumraket

So what I mean is he provided no good reasons.

But his reasons were based on the chemistry involved.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Mung

IOW, we’ll ignore the evidence because he is making a deductive argument, and his conclusion doesn’t follow deductively from his premises. What if he isn’t making a deductive argument?

His arguments don’t need to be deductive. They can be inductive, or take the form of inferences, but then they’re very ill stated. So they’re still very bad arguments. It isn’t made explicit how his conclusion is even weakly implied by the facts he cite. Many of which aren’t facts, but themselves could be taken to be inductive arguments, which upon closer inspection are extremely weak.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Ronald_Cram

Not true. They are not speaking about ignorance. They are speaking about what they know.

Yes true. They don’t know even a fraction of the conditions and processes operating when life on Earth first formed. The argument “forming life in the lab is too difficult for today’s scientists therefore it is impossible for natural processes to form life” is an unsupported conclusion based on their ignorance.

Did you ever see this famous quote by Lord Kelvin, one of the top scientific researchers of the 19th century?

" I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
— Lord Kelvin, 1895

How did that impossibility turn out?

[Ronald_Cram]

@Rumraket

What claim have I made that I cannot support? Quote it.

Okay, I will give you a few.

@Rumraket

Tour’s case fails at the level of reason. We don’t even get to consider the chemistry, Tour’s conclusion is logically unreachable and not even weakly implied by the facts he cite.

False. Tour’s conclusion is based on the chemistry. I understand why you wish to avoid discussing the chemistry though.

@Rumraket

The compound must be designed, the stereochemistry controlled. Yield optimization, purification, and characterization are needed. An elaborate supply is required to control synthesis from start to finish.

Another straight up question beggin fallacy. This conclusion follows from nothing Tour goes on to say.

I think I understand your point here. If life arose through a natural process, then the compound is not designed. Still, he’s right about everything else. Nature cannot skip controlled stereochemistry, yield optimization and purifications at each step. These are major issues and your arm waving isn’t helping your cause.

@Rumraket

Synthetic constraints must be taken into account when considering the prebiotic preparation of the four classes of compounds needed for life: the amino acids, the nucleotides, the saccharides, and the lipids.[1]

Again a straight up question begging fallacy. The fact that some experiment DID use synthetic constraints in order to reach certain outcomes doesn’t entail that this is the only way that outcome is possible. It just doesn’t follow.

But it does follow that for any kind of advanced chemistry to happen in a natural and unguided process, it would have to be a very, very unusual place. Your blanket denials of his points here are not helping you. It would be far better to admit that OOL researchers have no good explanations to explain how nature could perform the very precise purification steps to get to the desired product or how nature could deliver just the right chemical at just the right time while excluding all of other chemicals in the pre-biotic soup for getting in and fouling up the synthesis. None of this makes sense to a synthetic organic chemist. Acting like there is no problem here only serves to weaken your credibility.

@Rumraket

The next level beyond synthesis involves the components needed for the construction of nanosystems, which are then assembled into a microsystem. Composed of many nanosystems, the cell is nature’s fundamental microsystem. If the first cells were relatively simple, they still required at least 256 protein-coding genes.

How the hell does he know that? This assumes, at the very least, that the first cells had the capacity to generate their constituents through internal metabolic reactions, as opposed to picking some of them up from their environment.

Even if it is possible that the first life form had fewer proteins than we might expect, there’s no reason to believe cells do not require “the construction of nanosystems, which are then assembled into a microsystem. Composed of many nanosystems, the cell is nature’s fundamental microsystem.” This is one of Tour’s key points. The little nanocars that he synthesized are the kinds of things required by cells. They are very difficult to synthesize and as I mentioned in an earlier comment, one atom too many and the motor didn’t function properly. It’s incredible to think scientists believe these little nanosystems could come together by random natural processes. The amount of faith required to believe something like that in the absence of any evidence shocks me.

@Rumraket

It is not enough to have the chemicals on hand. The relationship between the nucleotides and everything else must be specified and, for this, coding information is essential. DNA and RNA are the primary informational carriers of the cell. No matter the medium life might have adopted at the very beginning, its information had to come from somewhere. A string of nucleotides does not inherently encode anything. Let us assume that DNA and RNA are available in whatever sequence we desire.

All this assumes the first cellular life form was essentially like a modern bacterium, with a genome of ribonucleotides, encoding proteins made of amino acids, which carried out the jobs of metabolism, replication and so on. This system is a product of evolution, there’s no reason to think it represents the requirements operating on the first cell. Never mind a fundamental requirement for any and all types of cellular life. The whole thing is based on a unproven and probably false assumption.

Your statement completely ignores the main point Tour is making regarding the information system in the cell and the presence of DNA or RNA. The DNA or RNA is the code itself but the information system requires both an encoder and a decoder. Where does that information come from? How does the encoder and decoder learn the information in the code? You say “there’s no reason to think it represents the operating in the first cell.” Yes, there is. Without a code that can mutate, you don’t have life.

@Rumraket

A cell, as defined in synthetic biological terms, is a system that can maintain ion gradients, capture and process energy, store information, and mutate.[3]

And maybe such a cell evolved from another type of cell that had fewer or worse versions of these attributes? James Tour claims that life should not exist, so he must have found a way to rule such a thing out. Where does he do that? Not in this essay or any of his references.

You ask “And maybe such a cell evolved from another type of cell that had fewer or worse versions of these attributes?” No, without these qualities, it isn’t a cell because it isn’t alive. None of your papers show that a cell can be alive and lack these qualities.

@Rumraket

Can we build a cell from the raw materials?4 We are synthetic chemists, after all. If we cannot do it, nobody can.

Synthetic organic chemists - If they can’t do it, nobody can.

Maybe nobody did. Maybe they evolved instead?

Tour’s point is that synthetic organic chemists are the best qualified to investigate the origin of life.

Next comes Tour’s extended discussion of the lipid bilayer. This is probably the second strongest point he’s making after his point about the information system in the cell. You blow passed his point with arm-waving as if you don’t understand the point he’s making at all.

@Rumraket

The composition of modern cell membranes are a product of evolution. The enzymes responsible for synthesizing membrane components (such as phospholipids) are not universally conserved, and in fact are known to be different and not homologous for the enzymes synthesizing the first half of the pathways in phospholipid biosynthesis in the two domains bacteria and archaea. This implies the common ancestor of bacteria and archaea had a different membrane composition than extant cells. And of course goes to show that membrane lipid composition can change.

This completely misses the point. Early OOL research in the “membrane first” approach pretended that a membrane commonly arose through natural processes. Here Tour is explaining that those single layer lipid membranes are not functional for life. So even though “lipid composition can change,” it still needs to be a bi-layer membrane - something that does not commonly arise through natural processes. In addition, these lipid-bilayers don’t just surround the cell as a whole, they are required in many different organelles. This is a big deal!

I could go on, but that’s enough for now.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Ronald_Cram

I could go on, but that’s enough for now.

Yes that was a nice summary of Tour’s arguments from ignorance. Science can’t replicate all the processes in abiogenesis now therefore abiogenesis is impossible.

Do you really not get how that is a scientifically worthless argument?