Replies

VadeRetro says: "Do you imagine that any lurker following this conversation shares your puzzlement on this point? The first self-replicating molecule floats in a sea of "food." It is the only eater on Earth. That's a sophisticated point you just had me explain, there! I'm sure dozens of people are glad you helped clear up their puzzlement on such a stumper."

You still don't understand. It is a complete faith (and an unfounded one) that only a single molecule next to millions would be endowed with self-replication. What process in nature--or even science--is so selective? We cannot yet even isolate a single atom with a laser emmitting a beam a fraction of the atom's size without affecting another atom.

It really is a "stumper" that a single molecule could attain self-replication while being right next to millions of other molecules experiencing the same conditions.

On "infinite energy"--I was referring to the system in which the hypothetical self-replicator inhabits. This system is must be constantly supplied with energies way out of porportion to the energies require by the self-replicator's in order to facilitate the self-replication (IE and prevent valence shell collapse through non self-replicating bonding).

VadeRetro says: All you need is time and stable sub-assemblies. You don't know what you're talking about. Nothing jumps together all at once. Read the main article on this thread. Miller type experiments showed that simple carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen molecules combine and recombine in utterly chaotic ways over time. It's the same ambient energy for all the reactions.

I am aware of the fact that simple molecules have stable bond energies. I was contending your hypothesis that variations of what must be relatively large (to those simple organic molecues) would be changing randomly, with the most efficient ones being selected.

My other main point--which you have completely ignored--is that large organic molecules could not have formed in a primeval system due to my catch-22 scenario--also which you have completely ignored.

Another point: basic thermochem also demands that energy be transferred to and from some system. If energy is transfered to the molecules it would inhibit or even break bonding of large molecules (the energy would be absorbed in bonds able to handle the increase, if it could at all). If energy is somehow transferred away from the molecules, IE when forming large bonds (the almost unanimous way to form larger bonds--through exothermic reactions), then the surroundings would need to increase in energy--which is very difficult given the enormous energies present in the system's surroundings.

In short, it would take VERY precise calibrationS at different times to synthesize large, endothermic molecules. IE an Intelligence.

Your "intractable" point: yes, you are right about precise measurements. But making a simplified model that incorporates known variables and behaviors does not required precise measurements. All I have done is to point out the impossibilities in the abiogenesis theoretical model for Earth (due to chirality, but increasingly for other factors).

You say the selective pressures are the same now--I'm sorry, they are certainly not. As I have said before, there were huge amounts of resources and energy available to the pre-replicators. As long as those two factors remain relatively plentiful, no selection takes place. This leads to my catch-22 point.

My point about species was regarding chirality. And I already directly addressed the points about bond stability--please refute what I said before repeating that argument.

Look, VadeRetro, I'm sorry if you cannot simply reference some scientists generalizations and convince me of your faith. That is what I mean by "compelling." I need to see the model of abiogenesis work; I cannot simply trust generalizations that have gaping holes that seem to expand the more we learn.

If you are becoming frustrated and unpleasant to your family due to me, maybe you should cease the debate. But do know I consider your points and evidence very closely and try to include them in my model (compilation of all variables and physics). It is when the oversimplified model's problems are not resolved or are, in fact, compounded, that I raise the objections. But I am more than willing to continue this discussion--even if you see the need to make it ad hominem (and without good proof).

You still don't understand. It is a complete faith (and an unfounded one) that only a single molecule next to millions would be endowed with self-replication.

Nothing forbids. It's Murphy's Law in reverse. Whatever can happen, will happen. There's time and a nice warm soup. You not only haven't made a credible objection, you haven't made a comprehensible objection.

It really is a "stumper" that a single molecule could attain self-replication while being right next to millions of other molecules experiencing the same conditions.

Somebody says the magic word. Down comes the duck with the 100 dollars. The band plays "Captain Spaulding."

My other main point--which you have completely ignored--is that large organic molecules could not have formed in a primeval system due to my catch-22 scenario--also which you have completely ignored.

There may be a few Catch-22s in nature, but they may not be the same as your imaginings. You have not done a good job explaining why anything is impossible here. I hope I've made clear in the preceding posts just how vague, rambling, and unscientific your objections have been. That's not the same as ignoring them.

Another point: basic thermochem also demands that energy be transferred to and from some system. If energy is transfered to the molecules it would inhibit or even break bonding of large molecules (the energy would be absorbed in bonds able to handle the increase, if it could at all). If energy is somehow transferred away from the molecules, IE when forming large bonds (the almost unanimous way to form larger bonds--through exothermic reactions), then the surroundings would need to increase in energy--which is very difficult given the enormous energies present in the system's surroundings.

To the extent I understand this, the Miller experiment itself already refutes it. Synthesis of more complex molecules continues happens in chaotic, mostly unpredictable ways. There is no complexity barrier. The ambient energy levels are fine for the continuous recombination, billions of parallel experiments every second for millenium after millenium.

I need to see the model of abiogenesis work; I cannot simply trust generalizations that have gaping holes that seem to expand the more we learn.

The tasking here has moved quite a bit, from "Explain the handedness of bio molecules" to "Cook me up a cell in a test tube." I consider the goalposts moved. If you have nothing better, we're done.