The Statement of Chemistry on the Origin of Life

American Thinker.com ^ | September 26, 2017 | James Clinton

[Kaslin]

In his August 1954, Scientific American article, "The Origin of Life," Nobel Prize winning Harvard Biologist George Wald stated,

"One only has to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."

What is "the magnitude of this task" that reasonably renders a natural origin of life "impossible?" Dr. Wald states,

"In the vast majority of processes in which we are interested the point of equilibrium lies far over toward the side of dissolution. That is to say, spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis."

The processes of interest include building proteins, DNA, RNA, and lipids. Nature does not engage in the "processes" of building these life-essential molecules (synthesis); Nature, rather, dismantles them (dissolution), if they exist at all.

Why? Nature inexorably proceeds towards "equilibrium" (Chemical Equilibrium), the most stable state. For example, the most stable state for amino acids in Nature is individual amino acids, not proteins.

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: " Nor did I post anything close to the summations you’ve projected on me. "

Can you cite an example?

" At least my summation accurately reflects your claim, whether you admit it or not. "

Nonsense.

"When it walks, talks, and swims like a duck, you need to have a reason to deny the identity of what you’ve described other than 'I never said it was a duck.' "

Can you cite an example that "walks, talks & swims like a duck?"

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: " 'Dysfunctional', how? "

Read it yourself, again.
"Anomaly: Blame apparatus, set aside problem, modify paradigm." Sounds pretty dysfunctional to me, and therefore not what Toulmin had in mind.

papertyger. " Bear in mind I’m only asking because I’m provisionally giving you credit in hoping you’ll have a real answer rather than 'begging the question' by simply positing Toulmin is right and Kuhn is wrong. "

Yet again you project views on me I never expressed, or quacked, as the case may be.
In fact, I don't doubt that both are right in different circumstances.
Kuhn describes a more chaotic, dysfunctional & unconscious "revolutionary" process, while Toulmin defends the honor of science by positing a more orderly & consciously directed "evolutionary" process.

I think both processes are, or were, true at different times & places.

You disagree?

[papertyger]

Sounds pretty dysfunctional to me, and therefore not what Toulmin had in mind.

Quack, Quack.

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "Quack, Quack."

So you're the duck, a bona fide member of the Ducka-cratic party devoted to projecting their own quacks onto others?

Fine.