Replies

Thank you so much for yet another very thorough reply! As usual, I will need to research and ponder on your points and will get back to you in more detail tomorrow (it's mighty late here.)

I would however like to make one observation:

Furthermore, the list of requirements is so long and unreasonably stringent (I doubt even quantum theory or relativity could pass the kind of hurdles this "offer" lays out) that contrary to their claim, the authors aren't asking for an "explanation" of the origins of life, they're demanding a fully complete, fully mature field in which all questions have been completely answered. Any submission that could actually meet their standards would pretty much close the book on an entire field of biology.

It is not "about" biology - it is about information, how it arose in the genetic code. All of those requirements are aimed at keeping that perspective, i.e. they are not looking for yet another chemical abiogenesis hypothesis.

A "mark my place in this thread" thingy.

It is not "about" biology - it is about information, how it arose in the genetic code. All of those requirements are aimed at keeping that perspective, i.e. they are not looking for yet another chemical abiogenesis hypothesis.

They're looking for both, actually, as well as quite a few other things -- probably because the more requirements they add, the more ways they can reject an application for addressing 99% of their topic, because it didn't cover a 1% side-issue they threw in.

Here are some examples of where they specifically require submissions to address biological issues:

[Applicants must provide] empirical correlation to the real world of biochemistry and molecular biology - not just mathematical or computer models
[must address] The ability of the genome to convey instructions, deliver orders, and actually produce the needed biological end-products
[must address] The bizarre concentration of singlehanded optical isomers (homochirality of enantiomers) in living things
By "mechanism," the Foundation means a scenario of sequential, cause-and-effect (or at least "functionally dependent"), empirically correlated events explaining how genetic prescriptive information (instruction) arose naturally within Nature sufficient to give rise to current life.
Any scientific life-origins theory must connect with "life" as we observe it
The hypothetical mechanism must demonstrate correspondence with "the real world" of biochemistry
Parallel computer models must similarly have direct empirical correlation with naturally occurring environmental, chemical, biochemical, and molecular biological scenarios.
model addresses biochemical problems such as the instability and difficulty with which ribonucleotides are made and activated; exclusively 3'5' beta-D-ribonucleotide phosphodiester linkages are established rather than 2'5' or 5'5'; deleterious cross-reactions are avoided; hydrolysis is prevented; and other issues of prebiotic plausibility

And so on.

Not only are submissions required to in effect explain all modern biology, but they are also required to be so comprehensive as to strike silent all possible concern about evolvability of any complex biological system whatsoever:

submission silences arguments of all-or-none "irreducible complexity" in evolving molecular machines and larger biosystems

And not only that, but the submission must be able to convince fans of "apparent design" that they are mistaken when they perceive "design" in any biological system (which needless to say goes vastly beyond merely demonstrating how life could have begun):

submission demonstrates that the "appearance or inference of design" in biosystems is only apparent rather than real

As I said earlier, the sponsors of the "prize" want to set the bar so high and difficult that they never have to pay out.