At Reasons.org: Is the Universe the Way It Is Because It’s the Only Way It Could Be?

_{Caspian
December 6, 2022

Fine tuning, Intelligent Design

4}_{Categories
Fine tuning
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Question of the week: How do you respond to the argument against fine-tuning as evidence for God by those who say the universe and its laws of physics are the way they are because that’s the only way they could be?

My answer: As I have documented in my books, The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th edition, Improbable Planet, and Designed to the Core, there are hundreds of independent features of the universe, its laws of physics, and its space-time dimensions that must be exquisitely fine-tuned to make the existence of humans, or their equivalent, possible in the universe. However, that pervasive fine-tuning is not the only way the universe and the laws of physics could be.

From a biblical perspective, the angelic realm has different dimensions and different laws of physics. Similarly, the future home of Christians, the new creation (see Revelation 21–22) has different dimensions and different laws of physics. Readers can see our book, Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men, for the scientific physical evidence for angels and the angelic realm.

As I explain in my books on fine-tuning, the universe can be fine-tuned in a different way to allow for the existence of certain kinds of bacteria but not allow for the existence of animals and humans. I also show how the laws of physics can remain unchanged but the universe structured so that no physical life is possible anywhere, anytime in the universe.
As I demonstrate in Designed to the Core, it is not just the laws of physics and the universe as a whole that are fine-tuned to make the existence of humans possible. All the universe’s subcomponents, from those on the largest size scales to those on the smallest size scales must be fine-tuned for humans to possibly exist.

Unlike the universe, the observed sample size of the universe’s subcomponents is not one. For example, there are a trillion trillion stars in the observable universe. So far, however, astronomers have detected only one star, our Sun, that possesses the fine-tuned history and features that make it possible for the existence of humans on a planet orbiting it. The Sun is not the only way stars can be. The same argument can be made for our Laniakea Supergalaxy Cluster, our Virgo Cluster of galaxies, our Local Group of galaxies, our Milky Way Galaxy, our local spiral arm, our Local Bubble, our planetary system, our planet, and our moon. The fine-tuning of the universe and all its subcomponents also vary according to the intended purposes for humans. As I show in Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, Improbable Planet, and Designed to the Core, the fine-tuning that allows billions of humans on one planet to be redeemed from their sin and evil within a time span of several tens of thousands of years is orders of magnitude more constrained than the fine-tuning that allows for the existence of a tiny population of technology-free humans with lifespans briefer than 30 years.
Reasons.org

Dr. Ross refers to scientific observations that show evidence of fine-tuning, not just for the existence of life, but to sustain life as we know it on Earth, with millions of species of plant and animal life, and a multi-billion population of humans with a technologically advanced global civilization. Often, arguments against intelligent design boil down to bad theology. Dr. Ross provides here a very brief connection between physical design parameters and a biblically-based theology.

Comments

AF, we both know that pebble shaping and sorting has utterly nothing to do with finding a washed up reel and rod on that famous surf fishing venue. And as Paley pointed out in his ch 2, finding that the rod-reel combo was self replicating points to far more information rich contrivance. The fish, crustaceans, sea weeds etc on a beach all testify to the wiring diagram architectural nature of life forms from cell up. That is a strong sign of design, save to those indoctrinated with self referentially incoherent evolutionary materialistic scientism or its fellow travellers. KF PS, RNA world is science fictional, until substantial observational evidence is provided. But, it serves the grand myth . . .kairosfocus_{December 13, 2022
December
12
Dec
13
13
2022
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox @ PM1 @ I think I've stumbled upon some differences between Deacon's model and RNA world, since in his paper there is no mention of "ribozyme." And "capsid" is a typical virus thing and does not feature in RNA world. As you said, there seem to be lots of issues to be solved for RNA world, and Deacon, as I understand it, rejects it and proposes another start.
PM1: Whereas most abiogenesis researchers have thought that you need proto-genes in order to get to proto-organisms — hence all the excitement about ribozymes and “the RNA world” — Deacon thinks the opposite — that you need to have proto-organisms (autogens) in order to get to proto-genes.
Origenes_{December 12, 2022
December
12
Dec
12
12
2022
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

But, without a ribosome, any sequence is as functional as any other; that is zero functionality.
Ribosomes are ribozymes that are central in protein synthesis in cells today. RNA world is postulated to exist prior to proteins (enzymes are proteins) being involved in metabolism and catalysis was achieved by ribozymes. So RNA based organisms in RNA world didn't need ribosomes. Ribozymes were functional (as ribosomes are today) and they both replicated and acted as catalysts. If you allow also promiscuity rather than specificity then there is selection through competition, fitter ribozymes get more chances to replicate. I'll concede this is all highly speculative, and I'm no expert on latest ideas and developments.Alan Fox_{December 12, 2022
December
12
Dec
12
12
2022
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox @
Well, it does contain the information needed to produce a copy of itself. The reciprocal copy, A-U G-C pairing makes the template for an identical copy.
But, without a ribosome, any sequence is as functional as any other; that is zero functionality. Natural selection does not prefer any particular sequence, right? So, in what sense can it be said to be "information"?Origenes_{December 12, 2022
December
12
Dec
12
12
2022
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

But RNA (or Deacon’s model molecule) simply producing copies of itself does not contain information.
Well, it does contain the information needed to produce a copy of itself. The reciprocal copy, A-U G-C pairing makes the template for an identical copy. The molecule is the information. That is what is so neat about RNA world.Alan Fox_{December 12, 2022
December
12
Dec
12
12
2022
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

PM1 @
Right, we’re not talking about nucleotide sequences at this point in the scenario. Rather, Deacon is talking about how autogen distinguishes between itself and its environment and interprets the molecules outside of itself as signaling information for the autogen.
To put it more succinctly: what we have here is a model protein-like molecule that does not contain information sitting functionless in a capsid. Right?Origenes_{December 12, 2022
December
12
Dec
12
12
2022
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox @
Not in RNA world. RNA can act both as replicator (producing copies of itself) and as a catalyst (less efficiently, sure, but like protein enzymes). No translation required.
Deacon's model protein-like molecule is proposed to do the same, as I understand it; also no translation required. But RNA (or Deacon's model molecule) simply producing copies of itself does not contain information. No natural selection acting on the "code." Their nucleotide sequence has no meaning/function, right? That was my point.Origenes_{December 12, 2022
December
12
Dec
12
12
2022
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

In order to function as genetic information a ribosome-like molecule is required, right? Otherwise, the sequence of nucleotides is meaningless, without function, and cannot be said to contain information. Correct?
Not in RNA world. RNA can act both as replicator (producing copies of itself) and as a catalyst (less efficiently, sure, but like protein enzymes). No translation required. Intriguingly, ribosomes are ribozymes, and are so central to cell biochemistry today that evolution has kept them in place by purifying selection, a hangover from RNA world.Alan Fox_{December 12, 2022
December
12
Dec
12
12
2022
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

@154
In order to function as genetic information a ribosome-like molecule is required, right? Otherwise, the sequence of nucleotides is meaningless, without function, and cannot be said to contain information. Correct?
Yes, there would need to be something that systematically maps nucleotide sequences to metabolic pathways (including the reactions that constrain and enable the nucleotide sequences to be mapped). In all extant cells, that the relation between DNA, mRNA, tRNA, and amino acids. But that common system could be -- for all we know presently -- quite far removed from the hypothesized autogens or chemotrons.
“… the information being consumed and used by the autogen as a whole” To which information about what are you referring here? And to be clear, we are not talking about the sequence of the nucleotides, right?
Right, we're not talking about nucleotide sequences at this point in the scenario. Rather, Deacon is talking about how autogen distinguishes between itself and its environment and interprets the molecules outside of itself as signaling information for the autogen.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 12, 2022
December
12
Dec
12
12
2022
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

PM1 @ 153
Deacon suggests that nucleotides were first used as sources of chemical energy, and that since the autogens needed to store ‘spent’ nucleotides in chemically and themodynamically inert ways, the autogens evolved a preference for nucleotide storage that would prevent their phosphates from interacting, by interspersing them with sugars. In other words, nucleic acids evolved first as just energy storage dumps, and only later became repositories of genetic information.
In order to function as genetic information a ribosome-like molecule is required, right? Otherwise, the sequence of nucleotides is meaningless, without function, and cannot be said to contain information. Correct?
The emergence of nucleic acids as storing information, therefore, happened subsequent to and because of the information being consumed and used by the autogen as a whole.
“… the information being consumed and used by the autogen as a whole” Which information about what are you referencing here? And to be clear, we are not talking about the sequence of the nucleotides, right?Origenes_{December 12, 2022
December
12
Dec
12
12
2022
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

@148
Where is PM1?
Taking the weekend off from being online.
Does he agree that Deacon’s model needs a ribosome-like molecule?
No, I don't think that Deacon's model of an autogen needs a ribosome or ribozyme like molecule.
If so, where does he think the information comes from? PM1 promised us complex functional specified information, where is it? All Deacon offers is a model of an inert protein-like molecule doing nothing in a capsid, but waiting for a ribosome.
This is not a correct specification of Deacon's model. His autogen -- short for "autogenic virus" -- has two components: a capsid that self-assembles in ways thermodynamically similar to crystallization, and a proto-metabolic network he calls 'reciprocal catalysis'. The autogen, much like Ganti's chemotron, is based upon consideration of the logically simplest components something would need to have in order to begin blurring the boundary between "nonlife" and "life". What makes Deacon's view unique, I think, is how he thinks about the very concept of information to begin with. Deacon is a close reader of the American polymath Charles S. Peirce. One of the many breakthroughs that Peirce accomplished in his lifetime was a new theory of meaning based on the idea that there are three kinds of signs: icons, indices, and symbols. Or more specifically, there are three different ways in which a sign can be used: as an icon, as an index, or as a symbol. The different uses of a sign depend on the larger system in which that sign is integrated, and how the sign is related to other signs, to interpreters, and to the world. (Deacon thinks that symbols only arise, strictly speaking, with the evolution of language.) So for Deacon, the question "where did the first genetic information come from?" becomes the question, "what is the simplest kind of system that could use signs?" That's what motivates the introduction of the autogen. The autogen basically only does three things: (1) it synthesizes the molecules that perpetuate the cycle of reciprocal synthesis; (2) sequesters the products of those reactions in a self-assembling lattice; (3) acquires the energy and raw materials necessary for continuing (1) and (2). Where things get interesting, though, is where Deacon connects the autogen model to the question "why is it that nucleotides are used in both storing and using genetic information and in storing and using chemical energy?" Deacon suggests that nucleotides were first used as sources of chemical energy, and that since the autogens needed to store 'spent' nucleotides in chemically and themodynamically inert ways, the autogens evolved a preference for nucleotide storage that would prevent their phosphates from interacting, by interspersing them with sugars. In other words, nucleic acids evolved first as just energy storage dumps, and only later became repositories of genetic information. The emergence of nucleic acids as storing information therefore happened subsequent to and because of the information being consumed and used by the autogen as a whole. Whereas most abiogenesis researchers have thought that you need proto-genes in order to get to proto-organisms -- hence all the excitement about ribozymes and "the RNA world" -- Deacon thinks the opposite -- that you need to have proto-organisms (autogens) in order to get to proto-genes.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 12, 2022
December
12
Dec
12
12
2022
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

KF: Re SG, predictably, the Alinsky personalising tactic. I pointed out a fact. That fact, that viruses hijack cells to reproduce, is decisive that they are parasites on cells, observedly. Just so Sci Fi tales of hypothetical pre cell worlds do not count. KF
Are you incapable of a civil conversation? There are zero scientists suggesting that life started as a fully formed modern cell or a fully firmed modern virus. The virus first hypothesis is simply that the precursor to life may be more akin to a virus than a cell. But you insist on twisting my relaying of a legitimate hypothesis into a nefarious agenda on my part. You really should get this pathology looked at by a professional.Sir Giles_{December 12, 2022
December
12
Dec
12
12
2022
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

Origenes, 2^1500 possibilities is indeed a huge search space. 3.5*10^451, vastly beyond threshold. KF
Chesil Beach! You don't have to search the whole beach exhaustively to find one unique pebble. You only need one that serves adequately.Alan Fox_{December 12, 2022
December
12
Dec
12
12
2022
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT}

Origenes, 2^1500 possibilities is indeed a huge search space. 3.5*10^451, vastly beyond threshold. KFkairosfocus_{December 12, 2022
December
12
Dec
12
12
2022
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

Re SG, predictably, the Alinsky personalising tactic. I pointed out a fact. That fact, that viruses hijack cells to reproduce, is decisive that they are parasites on cells, observedly. Just so Sci Fi tales of hypothetical pre cell worlds do not count. KFkairosfocus_{December 12, 2022
December
12
Dec
12
12
2022
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @ PM1, JVL
... in short, we are back at the issues of the von Neumann, kinematic self replicator. KF
Indeed. Unless there is a way around the ribosome, which must be able to replicate itself so that natural selection can kick in. Where is PM1? Does he agree that Deacon's model needs a ribosome-like molecule? If so, where does he think the information comes from? PM1 promised us complex functional specified information, where is it? All Deacon offers is a model of an inert protein-like molecule doing nothing in a capsid, but waiting for a ribosome. And where is Alan Fox? Where are they now? Caspian:
John von Neumann mathematically showed that the information content of the simplest self-replicating machine is about 1500 bits of information. This is a vast amount of information, since information bits are counted on a logarithmic scale, and it cannot be explained by any natural process, since it far exceeds the information content of the physical (non-living) universe.
Origenes_{December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

KF: his failure to acknowledge the significance of the fact that viruses are observed as parasitical on cells,
Again, you are assigning motivations to those you disagree with. That is very dishonest and disrespectful and only casts doubt on your character. Nobody is denying that viruses as we see them today require living cells to reproduce.
whatever speculative sci fi just so story worlds may be conceived. But then, he has been part of the recent attempts to discredit Newton’s Rule that constrains such cloud cuckoo land ideological speculation indulged while dressed in a lab coat. KF
We are talking about hypothesized natural OoL possibilities, not ID. I don’t know if the virus-first hypotheses is likely, but the fact that “ all viral genomes encode proteins that do not have cellular homologs” does lend some credence to the idea. And is well worth following up on.Sir Giles_{December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

Re SG, here we see his failure to acknowledge the significance of the fact that viruses are observed as parasitical on cells, whatever speculative sci fi just so story worlds may be conceived. But then, he has been part of the recent attempts to discredit Newton's Rule that constrains such cloud cuckoo land ideological speculation indulged while dressed in a lab coat. KFkairosfocus_{December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

KF: AF, 139, so there is basic agreement that viruses are derivative, not antecedents. So, trying on viruses for size as suggestive of ancestral forms fails. O’s onward remarks at 140 are relevant. KF
You obviously don’t understand the concept of sarcasm. If you had bothered to read the linked article, you would have read this.
Virus-first hypothesis: Viruses evolved from complex molecules of protein and nucleic acid before cells first appeared on earth.[1][2] By this hypothesis, viruses contributed to the rise of cellular life.[7] This is supported by the idea that all viral genomes encode proteins that do not have cellular homologs. The virus-first hypothesis has been dismissed by some scientists because it violates the definition of viruses, in that they require a host cell to replicate.[1]
Sir Giles_{December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

o, in short, we are back at the issues of the von Neumann, kinematic self replicator. KFkairosfocus_{December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

Follow-up #140 // As I have argued, it seems to me that Deacon must explain the ribosome, or something like it, in order for the supposed protein-like molecule to be transcribed and translated; IOW in order to put its information (arguendo assuming its presence) to work. However, let’s suppose Deacon gets the marvelous ribosome, what will it find? It will find a protein-like molecule to transcribe that contains no coherent “information” (if you can call it that). Since, before the advent of this ribosome, the sequence of the parts of the proteine-like molecule has been untouched by natural selection. So, what can the ribosome do? What coherent thing is there to produce? It is as functional as a computer without software. A few other hurdles for Deacon’s ribosome: - The ribozyme must form spontaneously in plausible prebiotic conditions. - It must be able to replicate itself before the first cell appears, so that natural selection can kick in. - It must do something useful for a future living organism. - It must store the information on how to do that useful something.Origenes_{December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

AF, 139, so there is basic agreement that viruses are derivative, not antecedents. So, trying on viruses for size as suggestive of ancestral forms fails. O's onward remarks at 140 are relevant. KFkairosfocus_{December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

AF, the pedants won, in short. Many years ago, I found reference to viri in print, which therefore entered my vocabulary. There is no good reason why that should not be acceptable in English, but then English is hardly the most logical of languages. I thought I could just leave the [sic] stand, but obviously everything will be pounced on in the rhetoric of attack. Understand, therefore, that you objectors are inviting the very thing you have previously attacked as pedantic, painstaking step by step addressing of points and projected counter points issuing in long corrective comments. But then, that is likely part of the point to play heads we win tails you lose. Duly noted for future reference. KFkairosfocus_{December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

As I understand it, the bulk of Deacon's paper is about a proposed protein-like molecule, which is just sitting in a capsid, replicating, without being transcribed and translated. IOWs it does not contain any information, because nothing is done with it at all. It makes no difference at all what the sequence of the parts of the protein-like molecule is. At a certain point Deacon writes:
So far the account of the origins of biological information that I have presented does not involve either DNA or RNA. Instead, it has demonstrated that the constraints constituting a recursively self-maintaining molecular system provide the mnemonic, instructional, and normative attributes that we identify with biological information.
Whatever Deacon means by "biological information" here, it has not to do with the sequence of his proposed protein-like molecule; which just sits in the capsid being completely ignored by its surroundings. Deacon goes on to say:
But, as the title promises, it is the purpose of this model system approach to go one step further; to eventually explain how a molecule like DNA could come to be used as a source of information about the relationships among other molecules.
OK, now we are getting somewhere, or are we?
In order to accomplish this I will offer a somewhat more speculative scenario, that invokes a bit of currently uncharacterized chemistry (though it is also a critical missing step in the RNA-World and all other nucleic acid based scenarios).
"More speculative"? And here his writings get somewhat opaque to me. I suppose he must get to the 'emergence' of the ribosome, but this particular term is nowhere to be found in the paper. Where does he get the building blocks for such a marvelous invention? How does it evolve without there being replication? Questions Questions.Origenes_{December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT}

How do viruses propagate? By hijacking cells with existing metabolic machinery. The logic of that implies that they are subsequent to the cells they hijack.
I'd agree it is implausible that viruses in their current stripped-down parasitic form could have existed prior to the hosts they parasitize. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_evolutionAlan Fox_{December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT}

...viri are parasites...
I'm having a slight attack of pedantry. The word "virus" meaning slime, venom and poison, is found in classical Latin only in the singular (being a mass noun). Being 4th declension neutral rather than 2nd declension masculine, if it had a plural, it would be "vira" in nominative and accusative case. The English plural is "viruses". JVL confines himself to a (sic) and KF gets it right in a subsequent comment. /pedantryAlan Fox_{December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

JVL, your actual clip shows that viruses are derivative. More to the point, the matter is functional. How do viruses propagate? By hijacking cells with existing metabolic machinery. The logic of that implies that they are subsequent to the cells they hijack. That they may be rogue horizontal transfer units may point to a possible origin, it does not change the process logic of dependence. KFkairosfocus_{December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: Instantly, viri [sic] are parasites on pre existing cell based life that carry out informational hijack, they are NOT antecedent to metabolic automata that effect encapsulated smart gating to provide homeostasis, with built in von Neumann kinematic self replication. From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsid
It has been suggested that many viral capsid proteins have evolved on multiple occasions from functionally diverse cellular proteins. The recruitment of cellular proteins appears to have occurred at different stages of evolution so that some cellular proteins were captured and refunctionalized prior to the divergence of cellular organisms into the three contemporary domains of life, whereas others were hijacked relatively recently. As a result, some capsid proteins are widespread in viruses infecting distantly related organisms (e.g., capsid proteins with the jelly-roll fold), whereas others are restricted to a particular group of viruses (e.g., capsid proteins of alphaviruses). A computational model (2015) has shown that capsids may have originated before viruses and that they served as a means of horizontal transfer between replicator communities since these communities could not survive if the number of gene parasites increased, with certain genes being responsible for the formation of these structures and those that favored the survival of self-replicating communities. The displacement of these ancestral genes between cellular organisms could favor the appearance of new viruses during evolution.
Do you want me to look at all your other statements to see if they too are somewhat askew? Do you expect people to just believe you without checking?JVL_{December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT}

From the OP: From a biblical perspective, the angelic realm has different dimensions and different laws of physics. Similarly, the future home of Christians, the new creation (see Revelation 21–22) has different dimensions and different laws of physics. Readers can see our book, Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men, for the scientific physical evidence for angels and the angelic realm. Does anyone happen to have read the book and can say what is the physical evidence for angels?Alan Fox_{December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT}

JVL, oh, what a clever, snide clip, one that resorts to sneering disrespect rather than addressing substance. That is not good enough. I put substantial points in the F/N following. KF F/N: On substance: 1: Recall, I took time to speak step by step to PM's emergentism i/l/o systems theory, thermodynamics issues etc here, that is context, and my always linked through my handle is further context. I think, for cause, they provide reason for me and for others to be confident that I have relevant background despite your snide dismissiveness. 2: Let me follow Origenes in the clip from Deacon he highlights in 111:
Viral capsids self-assemble (as do cell membranes, microtubules, and many other complex molecular structures within cells). Self-assembly is essentially a variant of the process of crystalization. Because of the way that the regular geometries and affinities of these molecules cause them to associate with one another they can spontaneously form into sheets, polyhedrons, or tubes. These two processes—reciprocal catalysis and self-assembly (depicted in Fig. 1)—are chemically complementary to one another because they each tend to produce conditions that are necessary for the other to occur. So reciprocal catalysis produces high locally asymmetric concentrations of a small number of molecular species while self-assembly requires persistently high local concentrations of a single species of component molecules. Likewise, self-assembly produces constraint on molecular diffusion while reciprocal catalysis requires limited diffusion of interdependent catalysts in order to occur. In this way reciprocal catalysis and self-assembly are molecular processes that each produce the boundary conditions that are critical for supporting each other.
3: Instantly, viri are parasites on pre existing cell based life that carry out informational hijack, they are NOT antecedent to metabolic automata that effect encapsulated smart gating to provide homeostasis, with built in von Neumann kinematic self replication. 4: Of course, the molecular species viruses hijack the cell to produce show similar self assembly in the cell and encapsulation, they are hijacking cell mechanisms. But at no point has adequate explanation of the system, organisation and information [D/RNA of the virus] been adequately accounted for. 5: That's like looking at how the flagellum self assembles and ducking how you get to that point apart from irrelevance about reciprocal catalysis. 6: We are still under the force of Origenes' point in 111:
Deacon posits unnamed model “protein-like molecules” which are copying themselves (there are some real-world problems with this; see #102). Next, these unknown abstract self-copying molecules have to be spontaneously encapsulated by model self-assembling “capsids”. How does this self-assembly of abstract capsids work? Deacon doesn’t say. It seems that this is already ‘explained’ by the reference to crystalization. Do you see my problem with this?
kairosfocus_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply