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: MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Paradoxes
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 19:42:09 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 356
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <vm7sd5$2sled$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vlt8mu$h46e$1@dont-email.me> <vlu0b5$lfhs$1@dont-email.me>
 <vlve01$som5$2@dont-email.me> <vm0n1k$16lsd$2@dont-email.me>
 <vm0r7q$178hu$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="31996"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TDIyvbKjawIfCIpOWAk2cVODBgc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vm0r7q$178hu$1@dont-email.me>
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,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: 21841

On 13/01/2025 3:39 am, Kestrel Clayton wrote:
> On 12-Jan-25 10:27, RonO wrote:
>> 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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========