Replies

Thank you so much for your reply!

Any attempt at using probability calculations to disprove abiogenesis is a waste of time partially because of the same reason. Without knowing the initial conditions, without being able to differentiate between life and non-life, and without knowing what minimum requirements are necessary for life the calculations have no meaning.

Indeed. There is also a problem in the language of the mathematics which would have to be addressed before speaking of probability. Many people tend to think of probability in terms of combination – but order is equally important for such discussions as abiogenesis. Thus we ought to turn to Bayesian probabilities (or better if you have one) when we get there. But first we must know what we are talking about – as you say, lets agree on alternative initial conditions, a theoretical model for what is life v non-life/death in nature, the minimum requirements to establish a ‘bootstrap’ for self-organizing complexity (or whichever model of complexity is to be used).

Not to get into a debate I have no ammunition for, but I noticed that you do not differentiate between prebiotics and modern complex organisms when considering the dividing line between life and non-life. Why?

That is where we began when the initial crew leaned to the Shannon model. We were looking for a ideologically neutral, unambiguous mathematical model which would be universally applicable – whether inquiring as to abiogenesis models involving hydrothermal vents, clays, etc.

For instance, the Miller/Urey experiments proved that zapping certain basic elements would cause amino acids. But their work made no substantial gains thereafter. OTOH, their work proceeded the boom of DNA knowledge in the community.

More recently, the Wimmer experiment was much more successful: creating the polio virus in the laboratory. His group started with a message (what would be broadcast “noise” in the Shannon mathematical theory of communication) which was RNA. Since RNA cannot be synthesized, they converted an RNA sequence into DNA which could be synthesized back to RNA. They then put the RNA (“broadcast message” in Shannon lingo) - in a cell free juice whereupon the virus built itself. The juice was a human cell shredded up with the nucleus, mitochondria and other large structures removed.

In the Shannon model, the RNA is broadcast “noise” in the channel which can either result in a successful or unsuccessful altered message to the receiver. In evolution lingo, “noise” is “mutation”. In abiogenesis theory under this model, at some point, these “broadcast” messages in the RNA world became autonomous DNA messages in the molecular machinery. (Rocha et al)

Where that sustaining (autonomous) successful communication is established, there is life. Where there is no successful communication, there is non-life or death. The DNA per se survives death but no longer is an active message – because DNA is autonomous communication and not broadcast (as in viruses, prions, etc.).

Thus, the Shannon model gave us a theoretical model for evaluating abiogenesis theory without any bias as to ideology.