Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ool - out at first base?
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2024 12:35:12 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 97
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <31nrlj1suov4rtr3mktudtbh5kp095sb9v@4ax.com>
References: <vj60ng$9f3v$1@dont-email.me> <nmdfljll8c8tokl1upfn7mbt4vjd7f0do5@4ax.com> <vjak6b$16l6r$1@dont-email.me> <gnqoljdl148j78jjvtke1pk81bk1hf1ard@4ax.com> <vjinh6$3mm5e$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="72390"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.20.32.1218
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WYqc3jQrg269hRi9KSJ0ua43EnI=
Bytes: 6706

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 12:37:42 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:

>On 14/12/2024 4:19 am, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:51:36 +1100, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
>> 
>>> On 10/12/2024 2:35 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 16:54:56 +1100, the following appeared in
>>>> talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
>>>>> other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
>>>>> these precursors is prone to underestimation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
>>>>> synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
>>>>> sugar and phosphate group.
>>>>>
>>>>> Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
>>>>> You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
>>>>> purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
>>>>> maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
>>>>> self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
>>>>> time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
>>>>> nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
>>>>>
>>>>> A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
>>>>> provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
>>>>> hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
>>>>> developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
>>>>>
>>>>> What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
>>>>> stability and continuity?
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
>>>>> vanishingly small probability.
>>>>>
>>>> Please provide the mathematical calculations which support
>>>> your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars; no
>>>> "but it seems too long!" whining.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> At some point this would need to be calculated and quantified, so valid
>>> request.
>>>
>>> My discussion at this stage though is a line of reasoning that in
>>> principle may significantly reduce the presumed probabilistic resources
>>> available for the formation of an autonomous protocell.
>>>
>>> In summary the argument is: if a hypothesised little warm pond (or
>>> thermal vent, etc) has virtually zero chance of producing this
>>> protocell, then no amount of ponds and planets will help:
>>>
>>> P(OoL) = N_ponds x N_planets x P(protocell) x P(post-protocell)
>>>
>>> If P(protocell) -> 0, then P(OoL) -> 0
>>>
>>> Of course, it remains to be demonstrated that P(protocell) -> 0, but
>>> would you agree with the logic of the argument?
>>>
>> Logic is worthless absent data, and can prove (or disprove)
>> nothing. Your argument is as valid as that of the Fermi
>> "Paradox" or arguments regarding the number of angels that
>> can dance on a pinpoint; i.e., of zero value without data.
>> So again, please provide the mathematical calculations which
>> support your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars.
>>>
>
>You're avoiding the question. Establishing the overall logic and 
>assumptions of a hypothesis is sensible before investing in the heavy 
>lifting of numerically testing it.
>
Wrong. Logic (if not erroneous, tautological or specious)
can tell you what *might* be worth investigating, but
discussions of specifics prior to data acquisition through,
at a minimum, preliminary experiment and/or investigation,
are a waste of time*.

First idea, THEN investigation, and only then discussion of
the results of the investigation. Unless it's a late-night
beer party in the dorm, in which anything stupid and/or
useless is fair game.

*And speaking of wastes of time, I'm abandoning this one.
>
-- 

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov