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: MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: To sum up
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2025 00:06:39 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 60
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <vo7kt0$qvu$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vo1kt4$2r8m5$1@dont-email.me> <vo1n39$2rdv4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo47ib$3cm8h$1@dont-email.me> <vo7jg5$2090$1@dont-email.me>
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="90007"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gUZFVLacpE3DZFgfKFPMpH/2edA=
Return-Path: <news@eternal-september.org>
X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org
Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org
	id C388922978C; Sat, 08 Feb 2025 08:06:50 -0500 (EST)
	by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54864229783
	for <talk-origins@ediacara.org>; Sat, 08 Feb 2025 08:06:48 -0500 (EST)
	by pi-dach.dorfdsl.de (8.18.1/8.18.1/Debian-6~bpo12+1) with ESMTPS id 518D6gth2832192
	(version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT)
	for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Sat, 8 Feb 2025 14:06:43 +0100
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.eternal-september.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 550D15FD2D
	for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Sat,  8 Feb 2025 13:06:41 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: name/550D15FD2D; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com
	id 21755DC01CA; Sat,  8 Feb 2025 14:06:41 +0100 (CET)
X-Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2025 14:06:41 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <vo7jg5$2090$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1+FsNMxqs3UE85IvQpBvGCa6K2xwDe2kkA=
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,
	USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.6
	smtp.eternal-september.org
Bytes: 4913

On 8/02/2025 11:42 pm, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 07/02/2025 06:00, MarkE wrote:
>> On 6/02/2025 6:07 pm, Ernest Major wrote:
>>> On 06/02/2025 06:29, MarkE wrote:
>>>>
>>>> “Researchers have shown that translation of the genetic information 
>>>> stored in our DNA is much more complex than previously thought. This 
>>>> discovery was made by developing a type of advanced microscopy that 
>>>> directly visualizes the translation of the genetic code in a living 
>>>> cell.”
>>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190606133759.htm
>>>
>>> 1) Complexity in living cells is not a particularly good proxy for 
>>> the probability of spontaneous emergence.
>>
>> I assume Davies means abiogenesis, not instantaneous formation.
>>
>> The more complex a minimal first life must be, the higher the 
>> improbability of naturalistic formation, yes?
> 
> It seems that at least one of us is confused. Both of your responses 
> appear to be non-sequiturs. Perhaps you could explain what you think the 
> press release shows, and the line of argument by which is supportive of 
> your position.

That was unclear on my part. Based on your use "probability of 
spontaneous emergence", I had assumed you were referring to the quote 
from Paul Davies as well: "The more we unravel the biochemical 
underpinnings of life, the more _improbable its spontaneous emergence_ 
seems.”

To reiterate as originally stated: "My contention is that progressive 
discoveries with the complexity and precision of life are making Mt 
Improbable higher and higher."

I.e., the more we know about life, the more complex we discover it to 
be. The references provided are evidence of this trend. Of course as 
science progress, we gain more knowledge. Fine. My point is though, that 
knowledge is revealing greater and greater complexity and intricacy in 
biology.

My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to 
naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.

With OOL, because it refers to prebiotic assembly, i.e. pre-Darwinian 
evolution, and so a greater burden is placed on random formation and any 
"chemical evolution".

With Evolution, because there is more precision and more development 
needed in the time available.

> 
>>
>>>
>>> 2) On an initial scan of the press release and paper this looks like 
>>> evidence against life being designed.
>>>
>>
>