Article <vm0n1k$16lsd$2@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<vm0n1k$16lsd$2@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!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: RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Paradoxes
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2025 09:27:50 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 327
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <vm0n1k$16lsd$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vlt8mu$h46e$1@dont-email.me> <vlu0b5$lfhs$1@dont-email.me>
 <vlve01$som5$2@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: rokimoto557@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="31506"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8gBrlEY7CSx7H9WbyDzImKpBmLM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vlve01$som5$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 19938

On 1/11/2025 9:47 PM, MarkE wrote:
> On 12/01/2025 1:48 am, RonO wrote:
>> On 1/11/2025 2:04 AM, MarkE wrote:
>>> Potential paradoxes are of particular interest because if unresolved, 
>>> they may indicate not just difficultly but impossibility.
>>>
>>> Benner's framing remark is noteworthy: "Discussed here is an 
>>> alternative approach to guide research into the origins of life, one 
>>> that focuses on 'paradoxes', pairs of statements, both grounded in 
>>> theory and observation, that (taken together) suggest that the 
>>> 'origins problem' cannot be solved."
>>>
>>> The examples below no doubt have debated degrees of resolution. 
>>> Provided FYI.
>>>
>>> _____________________
>>>
>>> *Paradoxes in the Origin of Life*
>>> Steven A. Benner, 2015
>>> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> We now can play the game. Here, the task is to write out pairs of 
>>> propositions reasonably grounded in existing theories, where these 
>>> pairs (if compared) create a paradox (Benner 2009). This focus on 
>>> paradoxes directs us towards questions that must be resolved before 
>>> any solution to the origins problem can emerge. Is also directs us 
>>> away from spending time researching simple “puzzles”.Footnote3 Its 
>>> greatest value, however, is to force us to address the content of the 
>>> theory itself, even those parts of the content that are normally 
>>> assumed without articulation.
>>>
>>> We illustrate this game by mentioning five examples of paradoxes 
>>> within the origins problem. We stipulate that “replication involving 
>>> replicable imperfections” (RIRI) evolution requires a linear 
>>> biopolymer, perhaps RNA, or organized collections of molecules. All 
>>> of the paradoxes below must be resolved before the origins question 
>>> easily lends itself to hypothesis-directed “normal” research:
>>>
>>> (a)The Asphalt Paradox (Neveu et al. 2013)
>>> An enormous amount of empirical data have established, as a rule, 
>>> that organic systems, given energy and left to themselves, devolve to 
>>> give uselessly complex mixtures, “asphalts”. Theory that enumerates 
>>> small molecule space, as well as Structure Theory in chemistry, can 
>>> be construed to regard this devolution a necessary consequence of 
>>> theory. Conversely, the literature reports (to our knowledge) exactly 
>>> zero confirmed observations where RIRI evolution emerged 
>>> spontaneously from a devolving chemical system. Further, chemical 
>>> theories, including the second law of thermodynamics, bonding theory 
>>> that describes the “space” accessible to sets of atoms, and structure 
>>> theory requiring that replication systems occupy only tiny fractions 
>>> of that space, suggest that it is impossible for any non-living 
>>> chemical system to escape devolution to enter into the Darwinian  
>>> world of the “living”.
>>>
>>> Such statements of impossibility apply even to macromolecules not 
>>> assumed to be necessary for RIRI evolution. Again richly supported by 
>>> empirical observation, material escapes from known metabolic cycles 
>>> that might be viewed as models for a “metabolism first” origin of 
>>> life, making such cycles short-lived. Lipids that provide tidy 
>>> compartments under the close supervision of a graduate student 
>>> (supporting a protocell-first model for origins) are quite non-robust 
>>> with respect to small environmental perturbations, such as a change 
>>> in the salt concentration, the introduction of organic solvents, or a 
>>> change in temperature.
>>>
>>> (b) The Water Paradox
>>> Water is commonly viewed as essential for life, and theories of water 
>>> are well known to support this as a requirement. So are biopolymers, 
>>> like RNA, DNA, and proteins. However, these biopolymers are corroded 
>>> by water. For example, the hydrolytic deamination of DNA and RNA 
>>> nucleobases is rapid and irreversible, as is the base-catalyzed 
>>> cleavage of RNA in water. This allows us to construct a paradox: RNA 
>>> requires water to function, but RNA cannot emerge in water, and does 
>>> not persist in water without repair. Any solution to the “origins 
>>> problem” must manage the paradox forced by pairing this theory and 
>>> this observation; life seems to need a substance (water) that is 
>>> inherently toxic to polymers (e.g. RNA) necessary for life.
>>>
>>> (c) The Information-Need Paradox
>>> Theory can estimate the amount of information required for a chemical 
>>> system to gain access to replication with imperfections that are 
>>> themselves replicable. These estimates vary widely. However, by any 
>>> current theory, biopolymers that might plausibly support RIRI 
>>> evolution are too long to have arisen spontaneously from the amounts 
>>> of building blocks that might plausibly (again by theory) have 
>>> escaped asphaltic devolution in water. If a biopolymer is assumed to 
>>> be necessary for RIRI evolution, we must resolve the paradox arising 
>>> because implausibly high concentrations of building blocks generate 
>>> biopolymers having inadequate amounts of information. These 
>>> propositions from theory and observation also force the conclusion 
>>> that the emergence of (in this case, biopolymer-based) life is 
>>> impossible.
>>>
>>> (d) The Single Biopolymer Paradox
>>> Even if we can make biopolymers prebiotically, it is hard to imagine 
>>> making two or three (DNA, RNA, proteins) at the same time. For 
>>> several decades, this simple observation has driven the search for a 
>>> single biopolymer that “does” both genetics and catalysis. RNA might 
>>> be such a biopolymer. However, genetics versus catalysis place very 
>>> different demands on the behavior of a biopolymer. According to 
>>> theory, catalytic biopolymers should fold; genetic biopolymers should 
>>> not fold. Catalytic biopolymers should contain many building blocks; 
>>> genetic biopolymers should contain few (Szathmary 1992). Perhaps most 
>>> importantly, catalytic biopolymers must be able to catalyze 
>>> reactions, while genetic biopolymers should not be able to catalyze 
>>> reactions and, in particular, reactions that destroy the genetic 
>>> biopolymer. Any “biopolymer first” model for origins must resolve 
>>> these paradoxes, giving us a polymer that both folds and does not 
>>> fold, has many building blocks at the same time as having few, and 
>>> has the potential to catalyze hard-but-desired reactions without the 
>>> potential to catalyze easy-but-undesired reactions.
>>>
>>> (e) The Probability Paradox
>>> Some biopolymers, like RNA, strike a reasonable compromise between 
>>> the needs of genetics and the needs of catalysis. Further, no theory 
>>> creates a paradox that excludes the possibility that some RNA might 
>>> catalyze the replication of RNA, with imperfections, where the 
>>> imperfections are replicable. However, experiments show that RNA 
>>> molecules that catalyze the destruction of RNA are more likely to 
>>> arise in a pool of random (with respect to fitness) sequences than 
>>> RNA molecules that catalyze the replication of RNA, with or without 
>>> imperfections. Chemical theory expects this to be the case, as the 
>>> base catalyzed cleavage of RNA is an “easy” reaction 
>>> (stereoelectronically), while the SN2 reaction that synthesizes a 
>>> phosphodiester bond is a “difficult” reaction. Thus, even if we solve 
>>> the asphalt paradox, the water paradox, the information need paradox, 
>>> and the single biopolymer paradox, we still must mitigate or set 
>>> aside chemical theory that makes destruction, not biology, the 
>>> natural outcome of are already magical chemical system.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> _____________________
>>>
>>> *What are existing paradoxes with abiogenesis?*
>>>
>>> ChatGPT: Abiogenesis, the natural process by which life arises from 
>>> non- living matter, faces several paradoxes and challenges that have 
>>> been discussed extensively in the scientific community. Below are 
>>> some of the key paradoxes:
>>>
>>> 1. Eigen’s Paradox
>>> Description: It highlights the challenge of maintaining genetic 
>>> fidelity in early replicators. For replication to occur with 
>>> sufficient accuracy, a complex enzyme (like a polymerase) is needed. 
>>> However, to code for such an enzyme, a relatively long genetic 
>>> sequence is required, which in turn cannot be reliably replicated 
>>> without the enzyme.
>>> Implication: This creates a chicken-and-egg problem between the 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========