Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Death Knell for Life from an RNA world

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The RNA world hypothesis, to be true, has to overcome  major hurdles:

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2024-the-rna-world-and-the-origins-of-life#3414

1. Life uses only right-handed RNA and DNA. The homochirality problem is unsolved. This is an “intractable problem” for chemical evolution
2. RNA has been called a “prebiotic chemist’s nightmare” because of its combination of large size, carbohydrate building blocks, bonds that are thermodynamically unstable in water, and overall intrinsic instability. Many bonds in RNA are thermodynamically unstable with respect to hydrolysis in water, creating a “water problem”. Finally, some bonds in RNA appear to be “impossible” to form under any conditions considered plausible for early Earth.   In chemistry, when free energy is applied to organic matter without Darwinian evolution, the matter devolves to become more and more “asphaltic”, as the atoms in the mixture are rearranged to give ever more molecular species. In the resulting “asphaltization”, what was life comes to display fewer and fewer characteristics of life.
3. Systems of interconnected software and hardware like in the cell are irreducibly complex and interdependent. There is no reason for information processing machinery to exist without the software and vice versa.
4. A certain minimum level of complexity is required to make self-replication possible at all; high-fidelity replication requires additional functionalities that need even more information to be encoded
5. RNA catalysts would have had to copy multiple sets of RNA blueprints nearly as accurately as do modern-day enzymes
6. In order a molecule to be a self-replicator, it has to be a homopolymer, of which the backbone must have the same repetitive units; they must be identical. In the prebiotic world, the generation of a homopolymer was however impossible.
7. Not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (10^24) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences.  
8. Over time, organic molecules break apart as fast as they form
9. How could and would random events attach a phosphate group to the right position of a ribose molecule to provide the necessary chemical activity? And how would non-guided random events be able to attach the nucleic bases to the ribose?  The coupling of ribose with a nucleotide is the first step to form RNA, and even those engrossed in prebiotic research have difficulty envisioning that process, especially for purines and pyrimidines.”
10. L. E. Orgel:  The myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist’s view of RNA’s catalytic potential.
11. Macromolecules do not spontaneously combine to form macromolecules
125. The transition from RNA to DNA is an unsolved problem. 
13. To go from a self-replicating RNA molecule to a self-replicating cell is like to go from a house building block to a fully built house. 
14. Arguably one of the most outstanding problems in understanding the progress of early life is the transition from the RNA world to the modern protein-based world. 31
15. It is thought that the boron minerals needed to form RNA from pre-biotic soups were not available on early Earth in sufficient quantity, and the molybdenum minerals were not available in the correct chemical form. 33
16. Given the apparent limitation of double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) genomes to about 30 kb, together with the complexity of DNA synthesis, it appears dif¢cult for a dsRNA genome to encode all the information required before the transition from an RNA to a DNA genome. Ribonucleotide reductase itself, which synthesizes deoxyribonucleotides from ribonucleotides, requires complex protein radical chemistry, and RNA world genomes may have reached their limits of coding capacity well before such complex enzymes had evolved.

Comments
Vivid @132
Besides this is not a proper forum for this type of discussion.
Agreed. I hope you have a blessed day.Origenes
January 16, 2023
January
01
Jan
16
16
2023
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
O Understood and not unexpected. I am not going to say anything more because then you will really hate me by quoting Scripture as to why it does not make sense to you. Besides this is not a proper forum for this type of discussion.. I was responding to PMI and piggy backed on Q’s comments and was pointing out a common misperception regarding Christians that they think they are morally superior to non Christians. I hope you have a blessed day. Vividvividbleau
January 16, 2023
January
01
Jan
16
16
2023
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
Vivid @129
Ori: What I read into this is that an unbeliever faces eternal damnation unless he behaves perfectly and is morally perfect. Was I mistaken?
This is basic Biblical Christian doctrine. It is not I saying this it is the Bible that says this. Why in the Biblical Christian worldview do you think there is a need for a Savior?
Then, indeed, the God of the bible tells me: “Believe what I say, or face eternal damnation.” As I laid out in #125, there are some foundational concepts in Christianity that do not make sense to me. I would prefer no quarrel with Christianity, and, in fact, I feel a profound connection to it. On most issues, I find myself on the Christian side. However, as I said, there are several fundamental concepts I cannot agree with. As you have confirmed, the Bible seems to present me with the following choice: pretend these problems do not exist and shut up, or face eternal damnation. My choice has always been not to ignore the problems. I am certain that God exists, but I do hope that He is not the one who tells me: “Believe what I say, whether it makes sense to you or not, or else ...”Origenes
January 16, 2023
January
01
Jan
16
16
2023
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Origenes at 128, Where did you get this from? https://www.thecatholictelegraph.com/can-non-christians-be-saved/52886relatd
January 16, 2023
January
01
Jan
16
16
2023
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
O “What I read into this is that an unbeliever faces eternal damnation unless he behaves perfectly and is morally perfect. Was I mistaken?” This is basic Biblical Christian doctrine. It is not I saying this it is the Bible that says this. Why in the Biblical Christian worldview do you think there is a need for a Savior? Vividvividbleau
January 16, 2023
January
01
Jan
16
16
2023
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
Vivid @127
This is not like you so what prompted this reaction?
In #117 you told PM1
You are right if you do that perfectly and you are a morally perfect human being God will welcome you.
What I read into this is that an unbeliever faces eternal damnation unless he behaves perfectly and is morally perfect. Was I mistaken?Origenes
January 16, 2023
January
01
Jan
16
16
2023
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
O “ “Believe what I say, or face eternal damnation.” Is that Christianity? What? I never once said” believe what I say or face damnation” ever!. Coming from you who are one of my fave’s surprises me. I have participated on this forum literally since it’s inception and it’s not like I have hid my belief in Christ, I have been very outspoken about my belief does this come as a surprise to you? This is not like you so what prompted this reaction? Vividvividbleau
January 16, 2023
January
01
Jan
16
16
2023
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
at 121 Ford Prefect states: "I have no idea how homo chirality originated, but there are people doing research on it. I haven’t seen any research on how it arose through intelligent means." That's a funny claim for Ford Prefect to make. The very first thing I cited was this video from Dr. Tour.
Addressing Abiogenesis – Common Misconceptions – Dr. James Tour – (March 2021) – Homochirality: https://youtu.be/tqbpd3CmBgE
In the summary of that video, Dr. Tour reveals that the only way that chemists are able to produce homochiral mixtures is by "massive human involvement"
Summary excerpt: "There is massive human involvement in the experiment", https://youtu.be/tqbpd3CmBgE?t=1479
So despite Ford Prefect's claim that "I haven’t seen any research on how it, (i.e. homochirality), arose through intelligent means", the fact of the matter is ALL research to date shows that the only way to get homochirality is by 'intelligent means", i.e. by "massive human involvement". In short, Ford Prefect's claim is the exact opposite of what the research is actually showing. Only intelligence is shown to have the capacity to drive a chemical mixture in a thermodynamically 'life friendly' direction. (See Brian Miller)
(20:25),, "All natural processes go from high free energy to low free energy. But life requires nature to take a bunch of chemicals and go from low free energy to high free energy. That is a physical impossibility.,,, "There has been more sophisticated analysis by people like Jeremy England at MIT. And Jeremy England has talked about what are called fluctuation theorems. A really interesting story is that people have said Jeremy England came up with a new physics theory for life. That somehow physics can explain the origin of life.,,, Again, I never trust what you read in the press, I go back to the original literature. When you look at England's equations it basically disproves all origin of life theories. Because, when you actually look at his math, what it shows you is (that), a system driven far from equilibrium, they tend towards greater entropy. The internal entropy increases. And they tend to give off heat. Well again, the origin of life requires the opposite. So, based on his equations, what happens is the probability of life forming away from equilibrium is just as small as near equilibrium. What that means is that,,, trying to argue that life originated through natural processes is like trying to create a perpetual motion machine, or to market alchemy. It is a scientific impossibility.",,, - Brian Miller - Thermodynamics, the Origin of Life, and Intelligent Design - video - 24:17 mark https://youtu.be/YAXiHRPZz0s?t=1453 “‘Professor Dave’ argues that the origin of life does not face thermodynamic hurdles. He states that natural systems often spontaneously increase in order, such as water freezing or soap molecules forming micelles (e.g., spheres or bilayers), He is making the very common mistake that he fails to recognize that the formation of the cell represents both a dramatic decrease in entropy and an equally dramatic increase in energy. In contrast, water freezing represents both a decrease in entropy but also a decrease in energy. More specifically, the process of freezing releases heat that increases the entropy of the surrounding environment by an amount greater than the entropy decrease of the water molecule forming the rigid structure. Likewise, soap molecules coalescing into micelles represents a net increase of entropy since the surrounding water molecules significantly increase in their number of degrees of freedom. No system without assistance ever moves both toward lower entropy and higher energy which is required for the formation of a cell.” – Brian Miller, Ph. D. – – Episode 0/13: Reasons // A Course on Abiogenesis by Dr. James Tour https://youtu.be/71dqAFUb-v0?t=1434
Ford Prefect also hand waved off all my other references as being irrelevant. Yet if Ford Prefect would have tried to actually understand what I was getting at in post 120, instead of just handwaving it off, he would have understood that homochirality ties into quantum biology, and that quantum biology, via quantum non-locality, is simply completely devastating to the reductive materialistic foundation upon which Darwinian evolution is based. i.e. In short, you need a 'beyond space and time' cause in order to explain 'non-local' quantum entanglement within molecular biology. I have a 'beyond space and time' cause to appeal to, Darwinian atheists do not.
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
bornagain77
January 16, 2023
January
01
Jan
16
16
2023
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
Vivid @ “Believe what I say, or face eternal damnation.” Is that Christianity? To me, several things in the Bible make perfect sense, but others do not. For one thing, the concept of original sin does not resonate with me at all. The concept is foundational to Christianity, so, I cannot call myself Christian. However, perhaps I should ignore the fact that it doesn't make sense to me and accept original sin as true anyway because Vivid here tells me that unless I behave perfectly (which cannot be done), the punishment for not being a follower of Christ is eternal suffering in hell.Origenes
January 16, 2023
January
01
Jan
16
16
2023
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT
Q . “Regarding Christianity, it’s truly a pity that so few people know what John the Baptist, Jesus, and his disciples actually taught, “ Yes it is a pity, more damaging are the things people think what Christians believe and I will address that in a moment but first I think it would be instructive do delve into the question of what exactly is a Christian. This would seem to be on the face of it a simple exercise but the term Christian has been so bastardized that in todays world it has no meaning at all. It has become a catch all term that has been neutered and gutted and in this age means all kinds of things.and has lost its delineating power. Perhaps it would be easier to attack this question by pointing out what a Christian is NOT. Before I do I think I should give some insight into my Christian theological outlook which I am sure is not shared by many professing Christian that frequent this forum. I drink deeply from the springs of Augustine and the Reformers, Hus, Wycliffe, Tyndale,Luther, Calvin, Edwards ,you can theologically label me as Reformed. Justification by faith alone, by grace alone, by Scripture alone. With that out of the way from a reformed perspective a Christian is not necessarily one who goes to church. Going to church doesn’t make one a Christian any more than going to a concert makes one musician. A Christian is not one who, for the lack of a. better term , is a “cultural Christian.” Nor is a Christian one who accepts certain creeds and in some cases professes their belief in Christ, after all Satan believes in Christ. A Christian is not one who has head knowledge but not heart knowledge. What a Christian is is one that totally commits themselves to trusting wholly in the finished work of Christ, totally make’s Christ their Lord by their submission to Him evidenced by their obedience to Him in their daily life. Faith withou works is dead, it is no faith at all With that preamble let me piggyback on your post 122 One of the most common misconceptions about Christian’s held by non believers is that Christians think they are good and morally better than non Christians. This is false in fact it is not the Christian that thinks they are morally better than non believers it is the nonbeliever who thinks they are better. I know that. may bother the non believers but it is true. Case in point. I would direct you to PMI post 112 and mine in 117. PMI in 112 declares in so many words that he is righteous. Jesus did not come for the righteous, indeed the righteous have no need for Christ, He came for the unrighteous. If you think you are righteous you have no need for Christ and if you are indeed righteous I agree with PMI he will have no problem when judgement day comes. Contrast that to the Christian. Every true believer in Christ knows that they are unrighteous.. So who actually are the ones who think they are morally better?. The ones that see themselves as unrighteous and morally bankrupt or the ones that see themselves as righteous? Vividvividbleau
January 16, 2023
January
01
Jan
16
16
2023
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT
Ford Prefect @121,
I have no idea how homo chirality originated, but there are people doing research on it.
Neither does anyone else outside of science fantasy. Here's an introduction on the subject of homochirality: Episode 4/13: Homochirality // A Course on Abiogenesis by Dr. James Tour https://youtu.be/tqbpd3CmBgE?list=PLILWudw_84t2THBvJZFyuLA0qvxwrIBDr&t=182 -QQuerius
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
PyrrhoManiac1 @115,
I have my reasons for preserving my anonymity, just like many other people here.
Likewise. It’s not that I’m worried about the paparazzi—they seem to be staying away in droves thankfully, but I’d like my words rather than my person be judged. "Querius" is a portmanteau of curious query. And my wife and I have profoundly diverse hobbies and interests, but we try to accommodate, facilitate, and definitely appreciate them in each other. I’m familiar with a number of the pioneering luminaries in the field of education. Before choosing home-based education for our five children, my wife and I both did a lot of research on learning theory and practice. We both had suffered through the soul-crushing experience of American public education, which was based on an industrial revolution model—mass production and a classroom arrangement mimicking that in 19th century white-collar firms and government offices. Instead, we wanted to provide our children with more freedom to be able to explore, to question, and to create. In the end, they all graduated with academic and athletic honors from secular universities, and pursued careers in vastly different fields—two of them started their own businesses. Regarding Christianity, it’s truly a pity that so few people know what John the Baptist, Jesus, and his disciples actually taught, and how the earliest Christian communities lived. Instead, they imagine it’s all about traditions, entertainment culture, and obscenely wealthy television frauds. Here are the teachings of John the Baptist, the prophet and emissary of Jesus. He described himself like this: “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” Which of these of John’s teachings do you agree with: To the Common People: “The one who has two tunics is to share with the one who has none; and the one who has food is to do likewise.” To the Tax Collectors: “Collect no more than what you have been ordered to.” To the Soldiers: “Do not extort money from anyone, nor harass anyone, and be content with your wages.” To the Religious Leaders: “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore, bear fruit in keeping with repentance . . .” Have you ever heard any of this? -QQuerius
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT
Bornagain77 writes:
Needless to say, that hardly inspires confidence in abiogenesis. They might as well have just stated that, “we have no earthly clue how homochirality developed, but we fervently hope that someday we might have an earthly clue” ? In other words, It is all a pipe dream on their part.
Followed by several hundred irrelevant words and quotes. What is missing is any cogent evidence based argument against any of the models presented in the paper. I have no idea how homo chirality originated, but there are people doing research on it. I haven’t seen any research on how it arose through intelligent means.Ford Prefect
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
Related note,
Chiral Induced Spin Selectivity James Tour - 2016 Excerpt: Chirality is ubiquitous in biological molecules. Aside from water, glycine, and acetic acid (among others), the majority of such molecules are chiral. The polymers of chiral molecules, such as the polysaccharides, polypeptides, and polynucleotides, are composed of chiral molecules. Such structures take on new shapes, including helices and spiral clefts, that are themselves chiral. Chiral systems are lower in entropy than systems in which molecules are true mirror images of one another. If this is so, why has nature taken such pains to preserve chirality? Work by Ron Naaman, David Waldeck, and coworkers reveals a reason for nature’s selection which, until recently, had never been considered.4 Quantum mechanics demonstrates that for two electrons sharing a region of space their electrostatic repulsion energy is contingent upon whether their spins are parallel or anti-parallel. Both electrons can be spin-up, spin-down, or one can be spin-up and the other spin-down. The CISS effect exploits the spin-properties of electrons. CISS was first reported in a 1999 paper by Ron Namaan et al. demonstrating that electron transmission through a chiral molecule depends on the electron’s spin.5 Electrons in the spin-up state preferentially traverse a chiral molecule in one direction, while electrons in the spin-down state traverse the same chiral molecule more easily in the reverse direction. Chemists now know that chiral molecules act as electron spin filters, permitting the one-way passage of electrons of one spin in preference to electrons of the other spin. Selective transmission probabilities can be a hundred times larger in a chiral molecule than in a non-chiral molecule. For an electron of the proper spin, chiral molecules show far less backscattering of the electron; this in turn greatly reduces the heat released from the molecule during the electron’s passage. Lower heat affords any biological system an advantage. Scientists have often wondered why living creatures do not overheat while undertaking normal biochemical functions. The existence of exceedingly efficient biochemical routes is something like an a priori deduction. Kwabena Boahen estimated that a microelectronics processor functioning with the capacity of a human brain would need at least ten megawatts to operate. This is equivalent to the output of a small hydroelectric power plant. The human brain needs only about ten watts.6 https://inference-review.com/article/chiral-induced-spin-selectivity
Also of related note: In the following 2015 paper entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules” it was found that “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” and the researchers further commented that “finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015 Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say. That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.” The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,, “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?” https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552
To drive this point home, this follow up 2018 article stated that “There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,”
Quantum Critical Proteins – Stuart Lindsay – Professor of Physics and Chemistry at Arizona State University – 2018 Excerpt: The difficulty with this proposal lies in its improbability. Only an infinitesimal density of random states exists near the critical point.,, Gábor Vattay et al. recently examined a number of proteins and conducting and insulating polymers.14 The distribution for the insulators and conductors were as expected, but the functional proteins all fell on the quantum-critical distribution. Such a result cannot be a consequence of chance.,,, WHAT OF quantum criticality? Vattay et al. carried out electronic structure calculations for the very large protein used in our work. They found that the distribution of energy-level spacings fell on exactly the quantum-critical distribution, implying that this protein is also quantum critical. There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,, http://inference-review.com/article/quantum-critical-proteins Gábor Vattay et al., “Quantum Criticality at the Origin of Life,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 626 (2015); Gábor Vattay, Stuart Kauffman, and Samuli Niiranen, “Quantum Biology on the Edge of Quantum Chaos,” PLOS One 9, no. 3 (2014)
Of important note: The link between quantum criticality and quantum entanglement has now been observed.
Physicists Finally Observe a Link Between Quantum Criticality And Entanglement - Jan. 2020 Excerpt: "When we think about quantum entanglement, we think about small things," says physicist Qimiao Si, from Rice University. "We don't associate it with macroscopic objects." "But at a quantum critical point, things are so collective that we have this chance to see the effects of entanglement,",,, "If you don't see anything that's collective, that's scaling, the critical point has to belong to some textbook type of description. But, if you see something singular, which in fact we did, then it is very direct and new evidence for the quantum entanglement nature of quantum criticality." What all of this high-level physics means is a lot of potential: potential quantum advancements in computing, communications and more. Scientists have hypothesised about a link between quantum entanglement and quantum criticality before, but now it's been observed.,,, https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-see-billions-and-billions-of-entangled-electrons-flowing-through-strange-metal
What is so devastating to Darwinian presuppositions with the (empirical) finding of pervasive quantum criticality and/or quantum entanglement within molecular biology, is that quantum criticality and/or quantum entanglement is a non-local, beyond space and time, effect that requires a beyond space and time cause in order to explain its existence. As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 28 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm
As Anton Zeilinger stated at his Nobel Prize lecture, "That tells you something about the role of space and time (in quantum mechanics). There's no role at all.",,,
"There's one important message I want to say here. When you look at the predictions of quantum mechanics for multi-particle entanglement,, so you could have one measurement here, one (measurement) there, an earlier (measurement), a later (measurement), and so on. These predictions (of quantum mechanics) are completely independent of the relative arrangements of measurements in space and time. That tells you something about the role of space and time. There's no role at all.",,, - Anton Zeilinger - 2022 Nobel Prize lectures in physics - video (1:50:07 mark) https://youtu.be/a9FsKqvrJNY?t=6607 Alain Aspect: From Einstein’s doubts to quantum technologies: non-locality a fruitful image John F. Clauser: Experimental proof that nonlocal quantum entanglement is real Anton Zeilinger: A Voyage through Quantum Wonderland - Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science”.
Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, and especially with the falsification of 'hidden variables', simply have no beyond space and time cause that they can appeal so as to be able to explain the non-local, i.e. beyond space and time, quantum criticality and/or quantum entanglement that is now found to be ubiquitous within biology. Whereas on the other hand, the Christian Theist readily does have a beyond space and time cause that he can appeal to so as to explain quantum entanglement. And Christians have been postulating just such a beyond space and time cause for a few thousand years now. As Colossians 1:17 states, “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
bornagain77
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
Ford Prefect at 111, the last sentence of your cited reference reads as such
,,,Whether or not we will ever know how this property, (i.e. homochirality), developed in the living systems represented on Earth today, studies of how single chirality might have emerged will aid us in understanding the much larger question of how life might have, and might again, emerge as a complex system. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2857173/
Needless to say, that hardly inspires confidence in abiogenesis. They might as well have just stated that, "we have no earthly clue how homochirality developed, but we fervently hope that someday we might have an earthly clue" :) In other words, It is all a pipe dream on their part. Of related note, Dr. Tour's take on the 'problem' of homochirality is far more chemically realistic, i.e. far more scientific, than their forlorn hope in abiogenesis is.
Addressing Abiogenesis - Common Misconceptions - Dr. James Tour - (March 2021) – Homochirality: https://youtu.be/tqbpd3CmBgE Diving into the science on homochirality, Dr. James Tour teaches the core chemistry concepts of enantiomers and chirality, exposing enormous challenges in the prebiotic synthesis and resolution of the molecules needed for life. By digging into the cited video's only provided reference, Dr. Tour puts ink on paper and shows how the devil is in the details when it comes to proper interpretation of the data. Finally, Dr. Tour touches on the stereoisomeric challenges facing synthetic chemists doing origin-of-life, prebiotic research. Video Index: 00:00 - Introduction 00:37 - Recall Dunning-Kruger 01:06 - Reasons & Intent of this Abiogenesis Series 03:01 - Enantiomers, Diastereomers, and Chirality 07:36 - Resolution of Enantiomers, Methods, and Requirements 09:26 - Quoting the Only Reference Cited 11:20 - Homochirality Explained 14:17 - Digging into the Misread of that Reference Much Ado About Nothing James Tour - Jan. 2022 The RNA world hypothesis, now half-a-century old, posits that the first replicators were RNA-based, and that DNA arose later as a product of RNA life forms. These notions and the RNA world hypothesis itself have proven remarkably durable, even though they fail to account for *the prebiotic chemical difficulties involving in creating a homochiral ribonucleoside; *the thermal instability of RNA, which decomposes rapidly, even at 0°C;15 *the fact that even specifically designed and primed RNAs have never been shown to duplicate more than 7% of themselves, and that those segments were found to be too short to serve as new templates;16 *the difficulties involved in separating RNA-RNA duplexes, which impede further reactions; *the role played by non-canonical 2?,5?-linkages that are routinely obtained in 20–80% yields, retard subsequent templated utility,17 and play no part in translation and transcription.18 The new RDNA world hypothesis only resolves one of these issues: the RNA-RNA sticky-duplex problem. For all these reasons, it is very difficult to accept the claims being made about the significance of this new research. As it stands, the prospects for the RDNA world hypothesis appear bleak. https://inference-review.com/article/much-ado-about-nothing
Quote and Verse:
"The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena." - Vlatko Vedral - Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
bornagain77
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
PM1@
God to PM1: “... in your life, you did everything you could to be a good person — to treat others with dignity and respect, to take responsibility for your actions, to make amends when you did wrong, the world is better because you were a part of it, and therefore you really did believe in Me in the ways that actually matter, despite the fact that you claimed not to.”
"There are, however, two conditions for your admittance:", God went on to say. "To join, you must agree that, in order to be rational, you have to be in control of your thoughts, and, even more importantly, you must agree to never speak of *poof* emergentism again."Origenes
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
PMI “Suppose you are right, and there will be some sort of posthumous judgment. How do you know that God wouldn’t say to me, “in your life, you did everything you could to be a good person — to treat others with dignity and respect, to take responsibility for your actions, to make amends when you did wrong, the world is better because you were a part of it, and therefore you really did believe in Me in the ways that actually matter, despite the fact that you claimed not to.” You are right if you do that perfectly and you are a morally perfect human being God will welcome you. Jesus did not come for the healthy he came for the sick, He came for people like me. On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: `I desire mercy, not sacrifice. ' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." “In that case, if God would condemn me to hell for not believing in Him regardless of my moral conduct — then I would only say that I would welcome it, because any God who would act in such a way is unworthy of praise by a rational, moral being. If God is like that, then Lucifer was right to rebel against Him.” Agreed Vividvividbleau
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
"Montessori schools"? Really? Some studies show students with better outcomes, some do not. My personal experience was a Catholic school with the addition of informed parents who extended my education. I remember my first trip to the local library. My parents had a 6th and 7th grade education respectively. I grew up with very good role models who were not family members.relatd
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
@113
Most repectfully, instead of trying to sound like a doofus wannabee, why dont you use your real name? How does your little Missus put up with it? I mean, if my hubby ever used a childish fake name like Pyromaniac, I’d blow my top.
I have my reasons for preserving my anonymity, just like many other people here. If you respect the anonymity of Querius and Origines, then please respect mine as well. The name is a portmanteau of "pyromaniac" and "Pyrrho", the ancient Greek skeptic. My wife doesn't know about my posting at UD and wouldn't care -- I don't hassle her about her hobbies, she doesn't hassle me about mine. That's part of how our partnership works. @114
As to how humans can organize themselves into a sustainable and just system is highly doubtful to anyone who studies history. Why? Because, while some people are intelligent, honorable, and hard working, other people are evil, dishonest, and lazy, and most of us are somewhere in between.
I would probably put the emphasis more on habits than on character-traits, but otherwise, yes, I quite agree. The hard question is how to institutionalize social practices that would proscribe and inhibit selfishness and bullying and incentivize generosity and fellow-feeling.
Even John Dewey recognized the need to use the education system for purposes of creating “the new socialist person.” He didn’t succeed, so we looked to B.F. Skinner to use behaviorism to “program” us meat robots into anything we want or need. How did that work out?
Funny you should mention Dewey, since he's by far my favorite philosopher -- far more than Marx, though I do wish Dewey had read Marx better than he did. Dewey was a socialist, but what was really central to his project was democracy: why democracy was valuable, how to improve it, and what kind of education was needed in order for democracy to work. His 1916 Democracy and Education contains very nearly the whole of his entire philosophical project. Now, with respect to the history of education in the United States, one thing above all is crucial to remember: in the words of education researcher Ellen Lagemann, "One cannot understand the history of education in the United States during the twentieth century unless one realizes that Edward L. Thorndike won and John Dewey lost". Edward Thorndike is not a household name these days, but it is he, and not Dewey, who actually designed the public K-12 system as it exists, with the emphasis on passive, bored students, rote memorization, and multiple-choice tests. If you want to appreciate the massive difference between Dewey and Thorndike, consider the difference between an education focused on rote memorization and a Montessori education. Whatever one thinks of Montessori schools, that is Dewey's ideal -- and that is the ideal that he thought needed to be implemented for everyone if democracy was to flourish.PyrrhoManiac1
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
PyrrhoManiac1 @106, Thanks for taking the time to express your opinions and worldview honestly. As Tammy Lee Haynes indicated, there's far too much "bobbing and weaving" going on here without addressing the issues directly. In some cases, honesty requires an "I don't know" response. In other cases an adamant "I don't know and I don't think anyone knows" response such as James Tour advocates is the most scientifically honest and productive approach. I'm convinced that studying nature with the scientific method from an assumption that everything in nature is random junk, some of which turns out to be useful has a poor track record and has hindered scientific progress. "Junk" DNA and "vestigial" organs are two infamous examples. As an alternative, investigating nature from a view that nature is Intelligently Designed WITHOUT TAKING ANY POSITION ON THE IDENTITY OF THE DESIGNER is far more productive in revealing how things work by means of the scientific method. Creationism is a position that YHWH is the source of all design information. Not Zeus. Not Baal. Not space aliens using the earth as a class project. Not some unknown spontaneous generation that "MUSTA" occurred but hidden by vastly different but unknown conditions and separated from us by 4.3 billion years according to current theory. However, the identity of YHWH is not subject to the scientific method and is usually accessible only by spiritual experience, taking it out of the domain of the scientific method. Even philosophers such as Spinoza, are limited by logical inference, their binary assertions, and a temporal outlook, not to mention the IQ needed to comprehend truth. As to how humans can organize themselves into a sustainable and just system is highly doubtful to anyone who studies history. Why? Because, while some people are intelligent, honorable, and hard working, other people are evil, dishonest, and lazy, and most of us are somewhere in between. Even John Dewey recognized the need to use the education system for purposes of creating "the new socialist person." He didn't succeed, so we looked to B.F. Skinner to use behaviorism to "program" us meat robots into anything we want or need. How did that work out? And finally, we seem to be reverting once again to naked force and propaganda--but for a good cause and all the best of intentions. Any bets on that outcome? -QQuerius
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
Dear Mr. Pyromaniac@112 Thanks for the latest smokescreen. Schtick-wise, it's getting a bit old, but it still makes us Creationists laugh. And I suppose when you got no cards, you fly with B.S. So, for one more laugh, let's call your bluff again. You claimed, a number of times, that there are several non-Creationist plausible chemical scenarios of how the first life could have orignated without God’s imntervention. But you never say what those scenarios are. So once again, please describe those allegedly plausible chemical scenarios, at least one of them, and for a special laugh, how it overcomes the issue of Chriality? In advance of your showing us your cards, us Creationists we thank you. PS Most repectfully, instead of trying to sound like a doofus wannabee, why dont you use your real name? How does your little Missus put up with it? I mean, if my hubby ever used a childish fake name like Pyromaniac, I'd blow my top.TAMMIE LEE HAYNES
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
@109
Tammy, imagine PM1’s frustration when the truth appears to him after he takes his last breath, with a replay of every effort he made throughout his life to suppress the truth. Probably a level of frustration that rises to wailing and gnashing of teeth, once his folly is laid bare.
Suppose you are right, and there will be some sort of posthumous judgment. How do you know that God wouldn't say to me, "in your life, you did everything you could to be a good person -- to treat others with dignity and respect, to take responsibility for your actions, to make amends when you did wrong, the world is better because you were a part of it, and therefore you really did believe in Me in the ways that actually matter, despite the fact that you claimed not to." Isn't it always said that only God knows what in a person's heart? Perhaps for all you know -- and for all I know -- I really do believe in God in the ways that He actually wants us to. But if God were to say "in your your life, you did everything you could to be a good person -- to treat others with dignity and respect, to take responsibility for your actions, to make amends when you did wrong, and the world is better because you were a part of it -- and yet you are condemned to Hell, because for all that, you refused to believe in Me." In that case, if God would condemn me to hell for not believing in Him regardless of my moral conduct -- then I would only say that I would welcome it, because any God who would act in such a way is unworthy of praise by a rational, moral being. If God is like that, then Lucifer was right to rebel against Him. (Personally I would not mind spending eternity with the virtuous pagans in Limbo as Dante imagines it -- forever denied eternal beatitude, but what splendid company to be in!)PyrrhoManiac1
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
TLH writes:
Please describe those allegedly plausible chemical scenarios, and for a special laugh, how they overcome the issue of Chriality?
I have not read this yet, but it might be a good start. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2857173/Ford Prefect
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
Spinozism: we can establish with absolute certainty through reason alone that only God exists and that nothing can exist that is not a part of God.
Spinoza posits some impersonal force that he calls "god". 1.) If only an impersonal force exists, then this impersonal force controls everything. 2.) Some impersonal force controls my thoughts ... 3.) I do not control an impersonal force that controls everything. 4.) I am not in control of my thoughts. Therefore, 5.) I am not rational. 6.) Therefore I cannot "establish with absolute certainty through reason alone that only God exists and that nothing can exist that is not a part of God" Nice try Spinoza, but I think you can do better.Origenes
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
Tammy, imagine PM1's frustration when the Truth appears to him after he takes his last breath, with a replay of every effort he made throughout his life to suppress the truth. Probably a level of frustration that rises to wailing and gnashing of teeth, once his folly is laid bare. The Creator, he is very patient.AnimatedDust
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
Dear Pyromaniac@103 With the greatest respect, let me say that I understand how difficult it must be, to be an Anti-Creationist at a time when Creationism is triumphant. The Scientific triumph of Creationism is, of course, the very subject of this very thread. And, let me thank you for the laughs we get, seeing our Anti-Creationists friends bobbing, weaving, and changing the subject, by writing irrelevant silliness on religion and marxism. In that regard, your stuff is among the best of the lot. 100% top-shelf. A total howl. Being that it is a cold and bleak time of year, we could all use a another laugh. I remember your writing that there are several non-Creationist plausible chemical scenarios of how the first life could have orignated without God's imntervention, So, please let me call your bluff. Please describe those allegedly plausible chemical scenarios, and for a special laugh, how they overcome the issue of Chriality? Once again, us Creationists, we thank you for your posts. Please keep them comingTAMMIE LEE HAYNES
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
PM1/104 Thanks. Very helpful, especially your description of how developments in cosmology would inform Spinoza’s view of God. Also helps explain the uptick in interest in Spinoza, in particular, Einstein’s sympathies with Spinoza……chuckdarwin
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
@103 There is a lot going on there (and with @86) so it's hard for me to identify a place where I can leverage a response. So instead, I'll just make a few generic points. 1. I agree with Marx that a socialist revolution would be a good thing under certain conditions, but I don't think those conditions currently obtain -- at least not in the countries of the Global North. So I am not advocating socialist revolution at this time. 2. My ethical theory, somewhat influenced by Marx but not primarily, allows for individual human rights but not a right to property. I think that a right to property is an intellectual swindle, because such a right does not protect the development of capabilities necessary for human flourishing. 3. It also worth noting that in the history of liberal capitalism, the right to property has been used to justify some atrocities. The political theorists of the Confederacy observed correctly that Locke's theory of property justified chattel slavery of enslaved Africans and the extermination of the First Nations of the Americas. (Locke himself wrote slavery into the constitution of the Carolinas.) So the right to property cannot be absolute, even if it were granted at all. 4. I would be happier if we took the moral principle that no person can be treated as property and extended that to land. That is, we should abolish land ownership. (I think that's a natural consequence of what Aldo Leopold calls "the land ethic".) 5. In what follows, I shall use the word "communism" to mean, as Marx himself used it, a post-scarcity society: a society in which there is no need for work or for money, and hence guided by the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". (The contemporary version of this ideal is sometimes called "fully automated luxury communism". We're a very long way from there, if it's attainable at all.) 6. For at least any society prior to communism, that society is governed by a just state if the principles that guide the basic institutions can be rationally accepted by all precisely because they are coercively binding on all. 7. For this reason, the principles cannot play favorites with regard to any comprehensive theory of the good, the true, and the beautiful. A state that took Christianity as the basis for its principles could not be a just state, because citizens who did not accept Christianity would feel that the principles of society were something alien imposed on them, rather than something that they could rationally accept. 8. In other words, a just state must be a secular state. This is not the same as advocating a secular society. I have no problems with public expressions of religious identity, as long as the state is neutral with regard to all comprehensive theories of the good, the true, and the beautiful. 9. By this standard, the totalitarian regimes of Stalin and Mao were not secular states precisely because a perverted distortion of Marxism was the state religion; Stalinist "DiaMat" and "HistMat" were its catechism, and also because people who did not accept this state religion were subjected to extraordinary persecution. 10. In order to avoid playing favorites, a just state must articulate a theory of human rights that could be rationally accepted by everyone who is subject to state power. No theological doctrine, regardless of how widely shared, could satisfy this criterion, and any attempt to do so would result in a theocracy. 11. Instead, a secular state must look to grounding human rights in a non-theological approach. I tend to think that universal human rights can be grounded in the capabilities approach developed by Sen and Nussbaum, where rights are understood as claims made about the limits of domination in order to safeguard the development of human (and indeed non-human) capabilities. 12. For reasons articulated by Rawls (and many others), I do not think that any capitalist society could be a just society. This is primarily because under capitalism, the interest of capital are fused with the power of the state, such that the few have the right to dominate the many, and the command of the instruments of violence (police, private security, national guard) necessary to protect that right. 13. I do not know what capitalism should be replaced with, and I cannot say that I know that it is replaceable. All I can say is that capitalism will be the doom of human civilization, and if we can't muster the creativity, intelligence, wisdom, and courage to replace it with something else, then we will deserve our extinction.PyrrhoManiac1
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
PM1, sadly, predictable. There is no doubt that the mainstream of "scientific socialism" built on dialectic materialism and historical materialism, both deriving from the Marx-Engels collaboration and laid out a dynamic of economic production modes and relations with class conflict based thesis-antithesis, then a next stage. The epochs envisioned were: primitive communalism > ancient slave state > feudal state > capitalist state > socialist state > [stateless] communist golden age. The USSR consciously modelled a transition beyond capitalism and it failed, having already discredited itself as utterly lawless, murderous and destructive. You and a circle or two of academics may wish to argue that no, that was not a correct implementation, the same for Mao, Pol Pot, Tito, Castro etc. We, looking on see the consistent power seizing lawlessness and unaccountable ideological oligarchies and for cause view this as reversion beyond the BATNA of lawfulness. There is a better path, to re-establish lawfulness, first built in law, the lawful state, responsible reformation, constitutional, lawful state democratic self government following the stream laid down on July 4, 1776. Ask the Poles etc on that. KFkairosfocus
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
@101 (and @70) I do not regard "state socialism" (as it is usually called) as an implementation of Marx's ideas, for reasons I've already given in this thread and others. I take the position that the Soviet Union and Maoist China were forms of state capitalism that merely used Marxism as their legitimizing ideology. (One might think that something similar applies to how Douglass saw the role of Christianity in the antebellum South.)
Even the violent overthrow of oppressive forces or economic collapse of a wildly top-heavy and corrupt ruling class as we see in most countries and all empires, the United States more and more obviously included, merely sets oppression back a few years as a new crop of rulers and warlords happily take over.
Well, I can't disagree that this describes the historical record, especially recently. I would say that this is what happened in Russia subsequent to the 1917 revolution -- the Bolsheviks ended up just replacing the oppression and terror of the old Tsarist regime while forcibly transforming Russia from a feudal-agrarian society into a capitalist-industrial society. @102
PM1, do you make any distinction between between “Spinoza’s God” and pantheism? I know that Spinoza has, at various times, been labeled a pantheist. If (an this is a big if), the Big Bang establishes an absolute beginning of the universe, how do you deal with the origins problem, i.e. that in order to create the universe, God has to exist external to the universe—beyond space and time?
I've tried giving this some serious thought, but I don't know cosmology and philosophy of physics well enough. My best response (given how little I know) is that the Big Bang should be understood as a conjecture based on how we extrapolate from general relativity. It says that there is a "time" past which we cannot know anything -- about 13.5 billion years ago, if I recall. So it is more an expression of our ignorance than of our knowledge. Regardless of cosmology, Spinoza's arguments entail that if there is anything that satisfies the criteria of being a substance, and if we define God as a being of absolutely unlimited power, then only God could exist and nothing could exist which is not part of God. If cosmology were to say that this universe is a contingent being, or that there are more than one actual universe, then perhaps a Spinozist need only say that Spinoza was wrong to identify "God, that is, to say, Nature" which this universe. Perhaps a contemporary Spinozist should say that God is the Multiverse. I don't know enough cosmology to have a better answer than that.PyrrhoManiac1
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 6

Leave a Reply