The Limits of Objectivity: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Nature of Existence

[LRT]

@Mercer

It’s a rhetorical question. No one who has read OoL papers for the last 2 years, much less 40 as you claim to have done, thinks that they did! Do you really think that Lane views that as a serious question in the field? He’s pointing out the absurdity of it. Try to keep in mind that Nature is a multidisciplinary journal.

I’ve read the article a third time.

Here are the two citations regarding Hoyle’s jumbo jet assertion:

‘Unlike evolving an eye, a process in which intermediates have function, encoding only half the steps of a metabolic pathway (or half the pathways needed for a free-living cell) has little, if any, benefit. Can genes that encode multiple metabolic pathways have arisen at once? The odds against this are so great that the astrophysicist Fred Hoyle once compared it to a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a jumbo jet. It is not good enough to counter that evolution will find a way: a real explanation needs to specify how.”

‘Conversely, if these difficult problems are resolved, then the hydrothermal scenario offers a promising route to the emergence of genetic information, overcoming Hoyle’s jumbo-jet argument.’

Now, can you show me how Lane was being rhetorical and why you think he doesn’t consider it a serious question?

I believe that reading the article as an act of faith in the successes of Ool so far is misguided.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@LRT

@Mercer

It’s a rhetorical question. No one who has read OoL papers for the last 2 years, much less 40 as you claim to have done, thinks that they did! Do you really think that Lane views that as a serious question in the field? He’s pointing out the absurdity of it. Try to keep in mind that Nature is a multidisciplinary journal.

I’ve read the article a third time.

@LRT

I’ve read the article a third time.

Here are the two citations regarding Hoyle’s jumbo jet assertion:

‘Unlike evolving an eye, a process in which intermediates have function, encoding only half the steps of a metabolic pathway (or half the pathways needed for a free-living cell) has little, if any, benefit. Can genes that encode multiple metabolic pathways have arisen at once?

NO. No one in the field thinks that.

@LRT

Now, can you show me how Lane was being rhetorical and why you think he doesn’t consider it a serious question?

Look at Lane’s science.

@LRT

I believe that reading the article as an act of faith in the successes of Ool so far is misguided.

I believe that you are ignoring Lane’s work (the obvious act of faith) and engaging in wishful thinking. You are also employing the straw-man fallacy.

As predicted, you haven’t shown any interest in Lane’s work.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@LRT

Now, can you show me how Lane was being rhetorical and why you think he doesn’t consider it a serious question?

He already answered you. Lane does NOT think all the enzymes that drive an entire metabolic pathway arose at once, and it’s clear he considers the notion absurd.

But he has more thoughts on the subject. What are they? What is he proposing instead? If you had any insight in or familiarity with the subject you’d know. So, tell us.

[John_Harshman]

@LRT

Here are the two citations regarding Hoyle’s jumbo jet assertion:

Just so you know, those weren’t citations. They were quotes. Quoting without attribution is rude, though in today’s Googly world you can usually find the citation using the quote.

I was able to find that your second “citation” is Lane, Nick & Xavier, Joana. (2024). To unravel the origin of life, treat findings as pieces of a bigger puzzle. Nature 626:948-951. Don’t know about the first. You need to do better.