Abiogenesis Harder than Once Thought

[Tuur]

So if his calcs are based on an incorrect understanding of entropy, then they're pretty much useless.

And how much is glossed over to present to an interviewer.?

 

[Tuur]

I don't think you've read (or understood) the paper.

No, I haven't read it. and I won't claim I'll understand it if I do. But there is a pdf link posted above and I have it on screen and will tackle it when I'm a little more awake.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Approximation shows up in places besides physics. Each year I have to model some information for work. For years I modeled each piece to combine it the finished model. Then it finally dawned on me that for some numbers, all of that was baked-in. Modeling those numbers produced the same results with significantly less work. No doubt a smarter person would have realized that from the start, but so it goes.

You brought up physics with your basic physics examples. A lot of things in this general area abuse physics for their own uses including creationists and "information theory".

The problem, from a complex systems chemistry standpoint, is that we don't have a clue as to how abiogenesis would actually occur. There has to be approximations to even tackle the problem and hope the results are at least in the ballpark. It does give a sense of what's required, and that's the point.

We have plenty of clues and do understand what the basic chemical components of a proto-cell would be and several models for how one would assemble. Researchers have shown how most (if not all) of these basic components could self assemble in natural environments.

That's like saying that if I bought a lottery ticket and won, the probability of me winning is 1. No. Even if I won, the probability of me winning would be good ol' n!/(r!*(n-r)!) to 1.

Once the selection event happens (the draw of the numbers) the probability shifts. At that point we can only talk of what the probability of winning was prior. Even then it is only from such regular systems, the pre-biotic chemistry is quite that simple. It also isn't in equilibrium.

Probabilities are important. If we go into a game and notice the probabilities aren't working out, then our understanding of the game is off. Maybe we don't have a good grasp of the rules or maybe it's fixed. Either way, it shows when something funny is going on.

The problem with probability in this context (OOL) there just isn't a way to accurately compute any probabilities. Ergo, the probability argument is GIGO. (The so-called "fine tuning" argument relies on similarly impossible to compute "probabilities".)

In particle physics, what would you think if a certain particle showed up more or less often than the numbers indicate it should?

Then we need to check the detector rates and the theory behind the production and background. It happens all the time and it is a huge part of what particle physicists due.

 

[BCP1928]

Approximation shows up in places besides physics. Each year I have to model some information for work. For years I modeled each piece to combine it the finished model. Then it finally dawned on me that for some numbers, all of that was baked-in. Modeling those numbers produced the same results with significantly less work. No doubt a smarter person would have realized that from the start, but so it goes.

The problem, from a complex systems chemistry standpoint, is that we don't have a clue as to how abiogenesis would actually occur. There has to be approximations to even tackle the problem and hope the results are at least in the ballpark. It does give a sense of what's required, and that's the point.


That's like saying that if I bought a lottery ticket and won, the probability of me winning is 1. No. Even if I won, the probability of me winning would be good ol' n!/(r!*(n-r)!) to 1.

Probabilities are important. If we go into a game and notice the probabilities aren't working out, then our understanding of the game is off. Maybe we don't have a good grasp of the rules or maybe it's fixed. Either way, it shows when something funny is going on. In particle physics, what would you think if a certain particle showed up more or less often than the numbers indicate it should?

Yes, the probabililty that you will hold a winning lottery ticket is very small. But the probability that somebody will win is close to 100%.


Likewise, the probability that emerging life would produce exactly this biosphere with exactly the creatures it presently contains was very small, but the probability that some biosphere would emerge and continue to this day was much higher. That's why your probability calculation is bogus. Probability is the number of favorable outcomes divided by the number of possible outcomes. The number of favorable outcomes is not one, in fact it is a number very much greater than one.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The odds of predicting the deal of a 2 deck set of cars is about 10¹⁶⁵ (a bit of an estimate since my calculator can go only to 100!). In another thread, I cited a website that said the number of atoms in the universe is about 10⁸².

Understand that this means that if there were a whole universe for each atom in our universe, you'd still come up short of atoms to get a number this big.

Nevertheless, once the cards are dealt, the deal exists. There's no point in saying it couldn't have happened. It DID happen. It's right there on the table.

Per @Hans Blaster, this is what we are dealing with. The cards have been dealt. Life is here. It happened. Prior probabilities are now meaningless.

Per @BCP1928, that something will happen is almost a given. We have no way of calculating the odds (that I'm aware of) that nothing would happen at all, let alone that the odds of nothing was higher than the odds of something.

ETA: The calculator on my computer says 1.0299016745145627623848583864765e+166

 

[Tinker Grey]

The power of numbers should not be underestimated. I Kings 8 says that to consecrate the temple Solomon sacrificed 144000 animals over a two week period. The sacrifice was a "fellowship offering" -- essentially a BBQ where everyone involved gets a piece of the animal.

Now, if there one altar (and that is all we "know" about) then each animal had to be put on the altar, BBQ'd to be edible, and taken off within 8.4 seconds (around the clock for 14 days!) (To say nothing of clean-up.)

Now this website, https://www.thespruceeats.com/roasting-a-whole-lamb-331593, suggests (under pit cooking) that it'd take about 18 hrs to be cooked properly.

Lets be nice. Let's assume that we're cooking it only to be preserved well enough for the parties to take their portion home and finish the cooking there. Whadya think? 1/2 hr?

To get 144000 sheep BBQ'd enough within 2 weeks (around the clock, mind you) it'd take at least 214 additional altars (which of course the text doesn't indicate). So maybe 500 altars?

(The text indicates a mixture of sheep, goats, and cattle. Cattle would definitely take more time than sheep.)

The point here is that the numbers indicate that a lot of these stories should be viewed with a huge dose of skepticism.

 

[BCP1928]

The power of numbers should not be underestimated. I Kings 8 says that to consecrate the temple Solomon sacrificed 144000 animals over a two week period. The sacrifice was a "fellowship offering" -- essentially a BBQ where everyone involved gets a piece of the animal.

Now, if there one altar (and that is all we "know" about) then each animal had to be put on the altar, BBQ'd to be edible, and taken off within 8.4 seconds (around the clock for 14 days!) (To say nothing of clean-up.)

Now this website, https://www.thespruceeats.com/roasting-a-whole-lamb-331593, suggests (under pit cooking) that it'd take about 18 hrs to be cooked properly.

Lets be nice. Let's assume that we're cooking it only to be preserved well enough for the parties to take their portion home and finish the cooking there. Whadya think? 1/2 hr?

To get 144000 sheep BBQ'd enough within 2 weeks (around the clock, mind you) it'd take at least 214 additional altars (which of course the text doesn't indicate). So maybe 500 altars?

(The text indicates a mixture of sheep, goats, and cattle. Cattle would definitely take more time than sheep.)

The point here is that the numbers indicate that a lot of these stories should be viewed with a huge dose of skepticism.

Just more discernment would be enough.

 

[Bradskii]

And how much is glossed over to present to an interviewer.?

By Endres? I don't know. Did he do an interview?

 

[Ophiolite]

144,000 animals sounds gross!

 

[Mountainmike]

We have plenty of clues and do understand what the basic chemical components of a proto-cell would be and several models for how one would assemble. Researchers have shown how most (if not all) of these basic components could self assemble in natural environments

That is a myth and wishful thinking repeated so often by those who want to believe it that it became “a fact.“

That entire statement is pseudoscience.

Those who study it objectively discover a big fat void between simple chemicals and the simplest known cell (which is horrendously complex ,) and only pure speculation , with no pathway proposed ,and zero evidence it ever happened.

The crutches on which believers lean of Autocatalytic sets and RNA world do not help In the big picture.
you are welcome to believe it happened , but not on the basis of your statement above which is false

iIf you dispute that then offer an example process for how it may have happened? . You can’t.
Since you cant say how the process happened you have no idea what components were needed Let alone how they came to be.

Simple question for true believers of your statement above:

. What was the structure of the first genome allowing evolution to present day cells? You can’t.
not even close. There is a void before the horrendous complexity of DNA/ RNA and no pathway to it or precursor even conjectured.

Ive noted several books which review this area, I suggest you read them.

they draw my conclusions.
It’s my frustration posting here, and why i no longer post.

People want to echo false conclusions (like your statement above) without putting the hard yards in to discover the truth.

 

[River Jordan]

That is a myth and wishful thinking repeated so often by those who want to believe it that it became “a fact.“

That entire statement is pseudoscience.

Those who study it objectively discover a big fat void between simple chemicals and the simplest known cell (which is horrendously complex ,) and only pure speculation , with no pathway proposed ,and zero evidence it ever happened.

The crutches on which believers lean of Autocatalytic sets and RNA world do not help In the big picture.
you are welcome to believe it happened , but not on the basis of your statement above which is false

iIf you dispute that then offer an example process for how it may have happened? . You can’t.
Since you cant say how the process happened you have no idea what components were needed Let alone how they came to be.

Simple question for true believers of your statement above:

. What was the structure of the first genome allowing evolution to present day cells? You can’t.
not even close. There is a void before the horrendous complexity of DNA/ RNA and no pathway to it or precursor even conjectured.

Ive noted several books which review this area, I suggest you read them.

they draw my conclusions.
It’s my frustration posting here, and why i no longer post.

People want to echo false conclusions (like your statement above) without putting the hard yards in to discover the truth.

Since @Hans Blaster specifically referenced protocells ("We have plenty of clues and do understand what the basic chemical components of a proto-cell would be and several models for how one would assemble"):

Protocells by spontaneous reaction of cysteine with short-chain thioesters - Nature Chemistry

It is unknown what lipids formed the membranes of early life forms. Now it has been shown that protocell vesicles can assemble from diacylcysteines, which form spontaneously from cysteine and short-chain thioesters. Silica catalyses membrane formation, and protocells formed from diacylcysteine...

www.nature.com

"Here we show that the amino acid cysteine can spontaneously react with two short-chain (C8) thioesters to form diacyl lipids, generating protocell-like membrane vesicles. The three-component reaction takes place rapidly in water using low concentrations of reactants. Silica can catalyse the formation of protocells through a simple electrostatic mechanism. Several simple aminothiols react to form diacyl lipids, including short peptides. The protocells formed are compatible with functional ribozymes, suggesting that coupling of multiple short-chain precursors may have provided membrane building blocks during the early evolution of cells."​

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2413816122

"We conducted lightning experiments in borosilicate reactors filled with a mixture of gases mimicking plausible geochemical conditions of early Earth. In addition to the variety of prebiotic organic molecules synthesized in these experiments, we investigated the micrometer-thick silica-induced organic film that covers the walls of the reactors and floats at the water–gas interface. We found that the film is formed by aggregation of HCN-polymer nanoclusters whenever water is present, either in the liquid or vapor phase. The organic film morphs into micrometer-scale biomorphic vesicular structures hanging from the organic film into the water. We also show that these structures are hollow and may act as microreactors facilitating chemical pathways toward increasing complexity. We propose that these organic biomorphs form through a bubble-driven mechanism and interfacial precipitation of HCN-polymers. The concomitant synthesis of biomorphic poly-HCN protocells and prebiotic molecules under plausible geochemical conditions of early Earth-like planets and moons and opens a different geochemical scenario for the emergence of life. "​

 

[Hans Blaster]

That is a myth and wishful thinking repeated so often by those who want to believe it that it became “a fact.“

That entire statement is pseudoscience.

Hardly. It is a summary to the best of my understanding of the basic state of OOL research as I remembered it. It was based on material I have heard discussed by knowledgeable people.

Those who study it objectively discover a big fat void between simple chemicals and the simplest known cell (which is horrendously complex ,) and only pure speculation , with no pathway proposed ,and zero evidence it ever happened.

I said nothing of the "simplest known cell", but rather proto-cells. There is a lot of development between them. You seem to be out of date on pre-biotic chemistry. As I recall, all of the basic sub-components of the needed bio-molecules can form in a variety of environments, some of them also self-polymerize.

The crutches on which believers lean of Autocatalytic sets and RNA world do not help In the big picture.
you are welcome to believe it happened , but not on the basis of your statement above which is false

Believers? This is not religion.

iIf you dispute that then offer an example process for how it may have happened? . You can’t.
Since you cant say how the process happened you have no idea what components were needed Let alone how they came to be.

If I dispute what? You've offered no mechanism to dispute.

Simple question for true believers of your statement above:

You seem confused about the difference between how science functions and how religion functions. I am not interested in your understanding of religion and I do wish you understood the operation of science as well as you think you do.

. What was the structure of the first genome allowing evolution to present day cells? You can’t.
not even close. There is a void before the horrendous complexity of DNA/ RNA and no pathway to it or precursor even conjectured.

I think the proto-cells I mentioned are along way from a "genome" and certainly from DNA.

Ive noted several books which review this area, I suggest you read them.

You have not been seen for since a month before this thread was started. You could not and have not made any book recommendations. (I'm not sure why it is books and not a review paper. Again, science is not built on books.)

they draw my conclusions.
It’s my frustration posting here, and why i no longer post.

Perhaps you should keep it that way if you find communicating with science frustrating.

People want to echo false conclusions (like your statement above) without putting the hard yards in to discover the truth.

Is this going to be like the other areas where everyone needs to read your favorite obscure source or they are not properly informed or "dedicated"?

 

[The Barbarian]

I also feel that looking at anything through a mathematical lense of chance will always end up looking bad, since if you number crunch anything hard enough, you can virtually say that anything is, to use the article's own words, 'unimaginably difficult'.

Each of us, for example, is "unimaginably difficult." Yet here we all are. The biggest error, for those thinking of assembly of molecules to form living things, is that they imagine it to happen in an open environment. But there's a clue in that the most essential cellular organelle, the cell membrane, is the simplest of them all, and spontaneously forms enclosed vesicles from molecules known to have existed on the early Earth.

Things happening within that semipermeable membrane vesicle would have very different energetics than things happening in open water.

 

[sfs]

What an odd paper. The core of the paper makes little sense to me. The author divides the information needed for the universal ancestral cell into three components: 1) genetic information; 2) structural information, e.g. protein folds and domains; 3) dynamic information embodied in biochemical pathways. What's puzzling is that most of the information in (2) is actually contained in (1), since the genetic information mostly specifies the structure of proteins, either directly through the primary sequence of the protein or indirectly through interaction with other proteins during folding, while most of the information in (3) (which is by far the largest component) is specified in (1) and (2).

Definitely not my specialty, but I would not bother paying too much attention to this one until it has gone through peer review.

 

[The Barbarian]

Abiogenesis has never been observed, so it's taken to have existed because we exist.

We do have God's word that abiogenesis is the way life began. He says the Earth brought forth living things as He intended. As time goes on, we have more and more evidence showing that God is right.

 

[Tuur]

We do have God's word that abiogenesis is the way life began. He says the Earth brought forth living things as He intended. As time goes on, we have more and more evidence showing that God is right.

The observation about entropy in open systems also holds here. With the sun and geothermal providing energy from outside the system, you can have a seeming reduction in entropy. With God creating life, that's places the origin of life outside the system. Abiogenesis in the modern sense supposedly occurs without the action of deity.

The article, BTW, is surprisingly short and seems to be written on a reading level slightly less than the old Science Digests. Halfway through. It's an interesting way to look at it. Why am I not all the way through? For one thing, I have a cat wanting attention.

 

[AV1611VET]

We do have God's word that abiogenesis is the way life began. He says the Earth brought forth living things as He intended. As time goes on, we have more and more evidence showing that God is right.

From AI Overview:

Abiogenesis is the scientific theory that life on Earth arose from non-living matter through natural processes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Abiogenesis in the modern sense supposedly occurs without the action of deity.

Personally I like "theogenesis," but unfortunately philosophy has gotten its claws into that word, and AI Overview defines it as:

"Theogenesis" generally refers to the "birth of God" or the process of becoming divine, often used in philosophical and theological contexts.

 

[The Barbarian]

Abiogenesis is the scientific theory that life on Earth arose from non-living matter through natural processes.

That's what happened, according to God. You do think Earth is non-living, right? If God chose to create by using natural processes, what do you find offensive about that? After all, He used natural processes to create your living body.

 

[The Barbarian]

The observation about entropy in open systems also holds here. With the sun and geothermal providing energy from outside the system, you can have a seeming reduction in entropy

No seeming about it. In a local system, with energy inputs, entropy can decrease.

With God creating life, that's places the origin of life outside the system.

He says it happened within the Earth's systems. What is wrong with God using nature to create life? That's what He says He did. He does most things in this world by natural means.