PARADOXES IN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

[TB2]

The 2018 International Conference on the Origin of Life identified five paradoxes that must be resolved "before any solution to the origin problem can emerge": (1) Asphalt Paradox. (2) Water Paradox. (3) Information-Need Paradox. (4) Single Biopolymer Paradox. (5) Probability Paradox.

"Even if we solve the asphalt paradox, the water paradox, the information need paradox, and the single biopolymer paradox, we must still mitigate or set aside chemical theory that makes destruction, not biology, the natural outcome of our already magical chemical system."

---

 

[Gus Bovona]

A lot of that – all of that – is beyond my level of expertise, but I did do a little research and I wonder if a potential problem here is that those paradoxes, as presented, don’t seem to acknowledge efforts to resolve the paradox. For instance I found an article in Nature, “ How the first life on earth survived its biggest threat: water“ (it’s behind a pay wall but I got access through my university). Perhaps the biggest takeaway from that article is such an obvious one and I wonder why it’s not acknowledged or recognized in what was presented in the OP: that takeaway is that, if water is inimical to the beginning of life, then maybe life started on dry land. The article is about the scientific research projects to see if life started not in the ocean, as commonly assumed, but on dry land.

Furthermore such paradoxes are not logical contradictions, they are empirical questions that are to be resolved one way or the other. (to some greater or lesser degree of certainty). It would seem difficult to prove for instance that life could not have started on dry land, much like trying to prove that there are no black swans. Granted, if scientists are able to show a possible pathway for life to have developed on dry land, that doesn’t mean it did happen that way, but it would disprove the claim that it is impossible because of the water paradox.

 

[TB2]

I wonder if a potential problem here is that those paradoxes, as presented, don’t seem to acknowledge efforts to resolve the paradox

Yes, very astute observation. This article was by OOL scientist Steve Benner, and the purpose was to try to focus the OOL research field on the questions that mattered; noting how many (claimed) "breakthroughs" there have been in the OOL, but with no actual progress, because the research usually avoids the tough questions. Benner wanted to encourage OOL researchers to be more deliberate about their research with a goal towards solving these paradoxes. I contacted Benner awhile back and asked him your same question, and he said progress has been made on some of these.

To clarify, the problems/paradoxes are still there. But he found at least one theoretical pathway to the synthesis of RNA nucleobases that could avoid the Asphalt/Tar Paradox (but that doesn't help all the other Miller-Urey type experiments/pathways that are plagued by the Asphalt Paradox)... But it still runs into the other paradoxes.

*I posted the "OOL Paradoxes" because it's something I already had written and was easy to share, and condensed. But I need to do a better treatment on the issues you raise (and such is in the works). When it comes to abiogenesis/OOL, people don't realize how much (popular science new) media hype there is on these things. We have a Grand Canyon Gulf to span between life and non-life, and someone makes an inch of progress and it's a "breakthrough" on the OOL. People don't realize how dead in the water the field is (in terms of answers). The truth is the sum total scientific evidence to date suggests that it is 'impossible' for life to naturally emerge from non-life. Life is not the inevitable result of natural law. That leaves chance contingency that sees life as a chance fluke of nature. Problem is chance flukes of nature aren't very natural, and science depends on repeatable regularities in nature that we can study. A lot of people are under the impression that, sure it's highly improbable, but if you roll the dice enough times it will still happen. While mathematically on paper that might be true, most people don't realize that scientists by and large reject chance luck, because it's little different from invoking miracles. The problem is there seems no way around the improbabilities. Worse still, we don't even have a compelling theoretical scheme for the origin of life on paper. The probability of life is currently incalculable, because we don't even know all the steps in theory (we don't know how to do it) that would be needed to calculate probabilities.

But here's the kicker that I will have to start a new thread on when I get the chance (pun intended): what most people don't understand about the astronomically improbable chance events we are dealing with (including unknown, unsolved steps we don't even have figured out yet), the whole "if you roll the dice enough times it will still work no matter how improbable" is that it's not simply the improbabilities. We don't have evidence that nature is even rolling the dice! (as my wife says when I lament not winning the lottery, "You can't win unless you buy a lottery ticket"---which I don't think I've ever done, lol)

 

[Gus Bovona]

Yes, very astute observation. This article was by OOL scientist Steve Benner, and the purpose was to try to focus the OOL research field on the questions that mattered; noting how many (claimed) "breakthroughs" there have been in the OOL, but with no actual progress, because the research usually avoids the tough questions. Benner wanted to encourage OOL researchers to be more deliberate about their research with a goal towards solving these paradoxes. I contacted Benner awhile back and asked him your same question, and he said progress has been made on some of these.

To clarify, the problems/paradoxes are still there. But he found at least one theoretical pathway to the synthesis of RNA nucleobases that could avoid the Asphalt/Tar Paradox (but that doesn't help all the other Miller-Urey type experiments/pathways that are plagued by the Asphalt Paradox)... But it still runs into the other paradoxes.

*I posted the "OOL Paradoxes" because it's something I already had written and was easy to share, and condensed. But I need to do a better treatment on the issues you raise (and such is in the works). When it comes to abiogenesis/OOL, people don't realize how much (popular science new) media hype there is on these things. We have a Grand Canyon Gulf to span between life and non-life, and someone makes an inch of progress and it's a "breakthrough" on the OOL. People don't realize how dead in the water the field is (in terms of answers).

1. You didn't reply to my point that there's no paradox (so far) of how water and early life were compatible, only a mystery that is being addressed scientifically. It's an empirical question, not a paradox.

2. Who cares about the media? I find science reporting in the media generally bad.

The truth is the sum total scientific evidence to date suggests that it is 'impossible' for life to naturally emerge from non-life.

Do you have a link to a scientific paper that establishes this? Once again, a difficult scientific problem does not equal an impossibility, until it is actually established that it's impossible.

Life is not the inevitable result of natural law. That leaves chance contingency that sees life as a chance fluke of nature. Problem is chance flukes of nature aren't very natural,

Of course they are; very unlikely things happen all the time. Turn face up an entire deck of cards after shuffling and you will produce a sequence of cards that is astronomically unlikely to happen.

and science depends on repeatable regularities in nature that we can study.

Admittedly, without life on another planet discovered, all we can do is to try to figure out how life **might have** developed on Earth.

A lot of people are under the impression that, sure it's highly improbable, but if you roll the dice enough times it will still happen. While mathematically on paper that might be true, most people don't realize that scientists by and large reject chance luck, because it's little different from invoking miracles.

If rolling the dice enough time works out that something is not so improbable, then that is exactly not invoking a miracle. It's invoking mere probability from a mathematical standpoint.

The problem is there seems no way around the improbabilities.

With a big enough universe, and enough planets, and a long enough time, what is improbable gets less improbable. Now, no one has worked out those odds mathematically one way or the other, but that means you can't reject the possibility of naturalistic life merely on those mathematical grounds. We both have to remain agnostic on that. But that agnosticism allows for research into abiogenesis, which I support.

Worse still, we don't even have a compelling theoretical scheme for the origin of life on paper.

Progress takes hard work.

The probability of life is currently incalculable, because we don't even know all the steps in theory (we don't know how to do it) that would be needed to calculate probabilities.

Are you equivocating on incalculable? If you mean we don't have the numbers to calculate it, I agree, and that the basis for agnosticism. If you mean that it is highly unlikely, see above.

But here's the kicker that I will have to start a new thread on when I get the chance (pun intended): what most people don't understand about the astronomically improbable chance events we are dealing with (including unknown, unsolved steps we don't even have figured out yet), the whole "if you roll the dice enough times it will still work no matter how improbable" is that it's not simply the improbabilities. We don't have evidence that nature is even rolling the dice! (as my wife says when I lament not winning the lottery, "You can't win unless you buy a lottery ticket"---which I don't think I've ever done, lol)

 

[TB2]

1. You didn't reply to my point that there's no paradox (so far) of how water and early life were compatible, only a mystery that is being addressed scientifically. It's an empirical question, not a paradox

There are a minimum 8-10 reaction conditions required for abiogenesis (based on comprehensive reviews of the research literature), including aqueous. Dehyrdating conditions are needed for certain abiotic steps, but so are aqueous. Water requirement is unavoidable. It's actually more difficult to do most chemistry without water. Land raises the problem of unshielded UV in the Hadean Eon. The truth is these 8-10 reaction conditions are mutually exclusive, such that there is no one single environment in which life could emerge. Multiple different networked environments would be needed. So models go as far to say an entire planet is needed (The "Habitable Trinity" proposes atmosphere, ocean, geologic/tectonic processes are all needed)

2. Who cares about the media? I find science reporting in the media generally bad

As a science educator (and one interested in and picky about the truth, and accuracy of information), I do. Also, a pet peeve of mine how abiogenesis is routinely presented in reserach and popular science news as fact, when it's far from. It's still the working hypothesis in science; which is fine. Sometimes we assume things for so long, though, that they start getting treated as fact instead of the assumptions that remain. Habit of a science educator: criticial thinking; distinguishing between 'facts' vs assumptions, presuppositions.

Do you have a link to a scientific paper that establishes this? Once again, a difficult scientific problem does not equal an impossibility, until it is actually established that it's impossible.

It's the sum total evidence. Numerous papers I can cite. That's the second thread that's in the works. An example is seen above with the Asphalt/Tar Paradox along the lines of "an enormous amount of empirical evidence establishes.... suggest that it is impossible for any non-living chemical system to escape devolution to enter the Darwinian world of 'the living'"--Benner quote above

Also, that's why I qualified with current/sum total knowledge to date. Science is only ever a statement of our current knowledge to date. Tomorrow a discovery that could be made to change everything. Also, why I put 'impossible' in quotes (because yes scientists don't like to speak in those terms). However, if this were any other typical hypothesis in science, abiogenesis would have been discarded long ago and seen as defunct/'disproven.' The problem is that science assumes naturalism, so assumes that abiogenesis can't *NOT* be true. That somehow it must be right.

But this raises another problem: that strictly speaking, abiogenesis is not falsifiable, which then raises the question of whether it qualifies as a 'scientific hypothesis' proper at all. Consider, what would it take to 'falsify' abiogenesis? Naturalists can scarcely consider the possibility because it "must" be true.

Also, this is not a god-in-the-gaps type statement from ignorance, but from a tremendous amount of knowledge that we have amassed about how physics and chemistry work: and degradative process outcompete synthesis and lead in the wrong direction we need them to.

If goes beyond "problems." The problems seem intractable. Plus, we must be careful not to reverse the process. It's not "we shouldn't give up on a hypothesis before we know," but "we shouldn't accept a hypothesis a prior without sufficient empirical confirmation."

I will clarify more when I post the second thread where I go into all this in greater detail. But perhaps we could put it this way: abiogenesis is naturally 'impossible' similar to how 'resurrection/reanimation' from a state of death is 'impossible.' (I will explain more in a second OP).

Of course they are; very unlikely things happen all the time. Turn face up an entire deck of cards after shuffling and you will produce a sequence of cards that is astronomically unlikely to happen.

Not this "chance fluke." You can never produce an astronomically unlikely sequence of fifty-two cards when you're missing most of the cards! The point is that OOL scientists themselves reject 'chance luck' as an explanation, because it's not a scientific explanation of any kind. Thus, most OOL scientists seek an unlikely set of chance contingencies that makes life *highly probable*. That's the pipe dream any way.

Admittedly, without life on another planet discovered, all we can do is to try to figure out how life **might have** developed on Earth

The OOL on Earth doesn't even make sense. The window of opportunity has shrunk so much that "conclusions" becomes indiscriminate without any objective criteria to guide us. Thus, the impossibly short time span available to achieve all this some scientists take as meaning life had to emerge somewhere else like Mars, while other scientists simply shrug and say, "Isn't it amazing that nature was able to originate life so much faster than we ever thought possible?" Again, people forget we have yet to even empirically demonstrate that life from nonlife is even possible. It's just assumed that it is. That is a horrible way to do science where one's assumptions are used to determine scientific "conclusions" (instead of hard empirical evidence).

If rolling the dice enough time works out that something is not so improbable, then that is exactly not invoking a miracle. It's invoking mere probability from a mathematical standpoint.

Even a functional ordered sequence protein or nucleic acid is beyond the odds of comprehension. We'd need hundreds (and thousands of copies of those hundreds). But like I said, it doesn't matter much if nature isn't actively rolling the dice. What's the chance of pulling an ace from a deck of cards that has no aces? We don't have all the building blocks we need in sufficient quantity and purified concentration to do mass action chemistry with.

Bottom line: and like I said people don't realize that OOL scientists themselves reject chance as an explanation. It is the non-scientist (and the theoretical mathematicans) who are optimistic about the 'chance' OOL. The chemists recognize it is impossible for all intents and purposes. You cannot originate life by chance. You have to have a series of chemical pathways that makes the origin of life more probable than not. And that's what OOL scientists seek.

 

[TB2]

ith a big enough universe, and enough planets, and a long enough time, what is improbable gets less improbable. Now, no one has worked out those odds mathematically one way or the other, but that means you can't reject the possibility of naturalistic life merely on those mathematical grounds. We both have to remain agnostic on that. But that agnosticism allows for research into abiogenesis, which I support.

That's the mathematician argument. The OOL chemist does not accept this as a valid scientific explanation. And that math argument only works if the probability of life's origin is > 0. If the probabiliy of abiogenesis is 0, then no amount of time will help.

People envision Darwinian "warm little ponds" in planets throughout the universe full of the 20 amino acids needed to make biologically relevant proteins. And then think no matter how improbable as long as you have enough time, then Voila! You'll eventually hit the right combination of 20 amino acids. But guess what? The 20 amino acids don't actually combine like that. At most one or two different types do. THAT is why we should care about media hype that report "breakthroughs show how amino acids can naturally polymerize to make polypeptide chains." It's misleading. People read that and think, "Oh, scientists have proven the 20 amino acids can naturally connect together. Abiogenesis is easier than we thought and just a matter of rolling the dice enough times." People don't realize that most of these experiments are only "proof of concept/principle" demonstrations of what can happen in theory. These polymerization experiments show one type of amino acid can connect with itself up to two to three types short length chains (2-3 amino acids long--- that's the type of "chain" being made). That's the extent of it. And that's why I said we have no evidence that nature is rolling the dice. And those are simply models for envisioned stocks of the 20 amino acids randomly combining in feats of combinatorial chemistry, when that's not reality. It's chemically impossible for the 20 amino acids to participate in such "dice-rolling," because they have different chemical reactivities that are mutually exclusive. Different amino acids are reactive under different set of conditions. There is no one environment where all 20 are reactive. You simply can't make biologically relevant proteins with only a 2-3 different types of amino acids no matter how many times you roll the dice.

And, honestly, this is truly the least of the problems. Having amino acids is not enough. There is a concentration threshold that must be met to the tune of billions of molecules to jump start a chemical reaction. And having that is also not enough. That concentration threshold must be maintained or the reaction stops. Prebiotic experiments use concentrated, purified stock solutions that don't exist in nature. Again, OOL research is largely theoretical "proof of concept/principle" experiments. And chemical reality is much different from toy paper model roll the dice. Roll the dice is not actually how mass action chemistry really works. Normal chemical reactions lead toward low energy equilibirum. What this means is that you may be able to solve one step and get a reaction to happen, but then you usually run into a chemical dead end with stable low energy products in equilibrium that don't want to react any further. In other words, you can have the building blocks, but that doesn't mean they're going to react with each other. We haven't even scratched the surface of intractable problems.

Progress takes hard work.

That assumes life can naturally emerge from nonlife, when it has yet to be empirically demonstrated. If tomorrow we solve it all, hey, I'm on board. Maybe some day in the future we'll demonstrate empirically that abiogenesis can indeed happen. But that is "faith, hope," not science. That is assumption without empirical demonstration. My statements are simply meant as a summary of our current status to date (which is all we can ever report with science). And our sum total scientific knowledge to date and everything we know about physics and chemistry suggests that it is not possible for life to naturally emerge from nonlife. More pointedly we can state: abiogenesis has not been empirically demonstrated.

Are you equivocating on incalculable? If you mean we don't have the numbers to calculate it, I agree, and that the basis for agnosticism. If you mean that it is highly unlikely, see above.

Nope. Not equivocating. We have no clue on how to do it even in theory. We don't even have a conceivable theoretical scheme *on paper* for how life could possible originate from non-life. We can't see or even imagine how it could be done even just in theory. That's how intractable the problems are. So, we have no way to accurately calculate the actual probability of the origin of life; because we don't even know if it can actually be done; the probability may in fact be 0.

For all the talk of dice rolling on paper and the astronomical improbabilities involved: those are just for getting a single, ordered, functional protein or nucleic acid! Minimal life would need an estimated 300 genes and 300 proteins with thousands of copies of each of those 300 proteins and additional essential molecules to the tune of around 1-2 million molecules total enclosed in a suitable enclosure with sufficient high density molecular crowding for functionality (i.e., 1-2 million molecules stuffed in an ~1 cubic mircometer sized volume). And that's just the parts! Life is more than parts. It is a self-referential autopoietic integrated system based on circular logic that creates many intractable chicken-egg problems.

And we haven't even got to the informational problem. So far all we've talked about is hardware, not the informational programming software we need, and the integrated, regulated informational processing systems in cells where molecules behave NOT as chemicals but as arbitrary token symbols in an arbitrary informational code based on an arbitrary set of formalisms/"rules" that normal physico-dynamics can't program or instantiate with semantic meaning.

Put another way, even if those randomly typing monkeys magically produce Shakespeare's sonnets, so what? That "information" has no true meaning or efficacy apart from the meaning we arbitrarily endow it with. What is the probability that all by luck seashells wash up on the beach and spell out "HELP!"? Who cares? Such an arbitrary arrangement of seashells doesn't actually mean anything or do anything or cause anything to happen in nature. It only means something to us; to (we) humans who have said this squiggle "H" and this one "E" and so on symbollically represent such-and-such (but don't have to; there is no chemical, physical reason why "HELP" should mean what it does, and it could just as easily be arbitrarily designated to mean something else or nothing at all)... That's the real type of problem we run into with informational code and algorithmic digital informational processing in cells, where cell parts are manufactured by an arbitrary informational code that relates different chemicals together for NO physico-chemical reason, but only an arbitrary one. Nature can produce "HELP" by luck, but can't make "HELP" mean or do anything.

And on and on and on the problems go....

 

[TB2]

Here is a great, succint article by an origin of life researcher Pier Luisi, who also happens to be an aquaintance of mine. It's a pretty short read, and will give you an accurate, realistic idea of the status of the field (spoiler: we're clueless).

 

[Gus Bovona]

There are a minimum 8-10 reaction conditions required for abiogenesis (based on comprehensive reviews of the research literature), including aqueous. Dehyrdating conditions are needed for certain abiotic steps, but so are aqueous. Water requirement is unavoidable. It's actually more difficult to do most chemistry without water. Land raises the problem of unshielded UV in the Hadean Eon. The truth is these 8-10 reaction conditions are mutually exclusive, such that there is no one single environment in which life could emerge. Multiple different networked environments would be needed. So models go as far to say an entire planet is needed (The "Habitable Trinity" proposes atmosphere, ocean, geologic/tectonic processes are all needed)

So you need water, and you need dry. That's not a paradox, it's just two different conditions that are needed.

As a science educator (and one interested in and picky about the truth, and accuracy of information), I do. Also, a pet peeve of mine how abiogenesis is routinely presented in reserach and popular science news as fact, when it's far from. It's still the working hypothesis in science; which is fine. Sometimes we assume things for so long, though, that they start getting treated as fact instead of the assumptions that remain. Habit of a science educator: criticial thinking; distinguishing between 'facts' vs assumptions, presuppositions.

I was a little hasty in my reply about the media. I guess my caution is that we should be careful to distinguish the actual science from the reporting of it.

It's the sum total evidence. Numerous papers I can cite.

What's the best one, in your opinion?

That's the second thread that's in the works. An example is seen above with the Asphalt/Tar Paradox along the lines of "an enormous amount of empirical evidence establishes.... suggest that it is impossible for any non-living chemical system to escape devolution to enter the Darwinian world of 'the living'"--Benner quote above

Also, that's why I qualified with current/sum total knowledge to date. Science is only ever a statement of our current knowledge to date. Tomorrow a discovery that could be made to change everything. Also, why I put 'impossible' in quotes (because yes scientists don't like to speak in those terms).

It was not clear to me that those quotation marks around impossible meant that you weren't really saying it was impossible.

However, if this were any other typical hypothesis in science, abiogenesis would have been discarded long ago and seen as defunct/'disproven.' The problem is that science assumes naturalism, so assumes that abiogenesis can't *NOT* be true. That somehow it must be right.

Not at all. Science doesn't assume (philosophical) naturalism, nor does it need philosophical naturalism to do the work of science; it has evaluated the track record of methodological naturalism and found it to be superior to anything else. There have been various scientific studies that try to find supernatural effects, like ESP, and the like. Science certainly does not say that abiogenesis can not NOT be true. Do you have a source for that?

But this raises another problem: that strictly speaking, abiogenesis is not falsifiable, which then raises the question of whether it qualifies as a 'scientific hypothesis' proper at all. Consider, what would it take to 'falsify' abiogenesis? Naturalists can scarcely consider the possibility because it "must" be true.

Scientist don't assume that abiogenesis is true, they are merely exploring whether it could be true or not.

Also, this is not a god-in-the-gaps type statement from ignorance, but from a tremendous amount of knowledge that we have amassed about how physics and chemistry work: and degradative process outcompete synthesis and lead in the wrong direction we need them to.

It still looks to be a god of the gaps: we don't have a complete story about how biogenesis might work, so it didn't happen. Abiogensis has not been proven nor disproven, it's still an open question.

If goes beyond "problems." The problems seem intractable.

Being intractable is not the same as impossible, because intractable depends on the contingencies of how much we know, how many people are studying it, etc. Abiogenesis needs its Darwin or Einstein to come along.

Plus, we must be careful not to reverse the process. It's not "we shouldn't give up on a hypothesis before we know," but "we shouldn't accept a hypothesis a prior without sufficient empirical confirmation."

Scientists are not accepting a hypothesis (as if it is true), they're just working on it to see if it might be true.

I will clarify more when I post the second thread where I go into all this in greater detail. But perhaps we could put it this way: abiogenesis is naturally 'impossible' similar to how 'resurrection/reanimation' from a state of death is 'impossible.' (I will explain more in a second OP).

I await that.

Not this "chance fluke." You can never produce an astronomically unlikely sequence of fifty-two cards when you're missing most of the cards!

Missing cards is not the point of that analogy. One can alter any analogy to destroy its point.

The point is that OOL scientists themselves reject 'chance luck' as an explanation, because it's not a scientific explanation of any kind. Thus, most OOL scientists seek an unlikely set of chance contingencies that makes life *highly probable*. That's the pipe dream any way.

I don't think anyone has the numbers to say how unlikely abiogenesis is or is not. One number that I never see and never gets included is the number of trials over a certain period of time.

The OOL on Earth doesn't even make sense. The window of opportunity has shrunk so much that "conclusions" becomes indiscriminate without any objective criteria to guide us.

That's a little too vague to respond to.

Thus, the impossibly short time span available to achieve all this

Exactly what time frame are you talking about?

some scientists take as meaning life had to emerge somewhere else like Mars, while other scientists simply shrug and say, "Isn't it amazing that nature was able to originate life so much faster than we ever thought possible?"

Lots of scientists will say one thing, others can say another, and the process of science has a great track record of it all coming out in the end.

Again, people forget we have yet to even empirically demonstrate that life from nonlife is even possible. It's just assumed that it is. That is a horrible way to do science where one's assumptions are used to determine scientific "conclusions" (instead of hard empirical evidence).

Science doesn't have to assume that it is (at least in the strong sense of the word, that is, thinking that it is true) in order to explore that option to see if it might be true.

Even a functional ordered sequence protein or nucleic acid is beyond the odds of comprehension.

There are two problems with looking at the situation that way: (1) it assumes that only one sequence could have created life, and (2) it assumes that the sequence is put together all at once, in a stroke. Also, remember that the number of trials over a certain time period needs to be included in those odds. A quadrillion-to-oen-shot will probably happen with a quadrillion trials (actually, fewer, I think, but I don't know the math).

We'd need hundreds (and thousands of copies of those hundreds). But like I said, it doesn't matter much if nature isn't actively rolling the dice. What's the chance of pulling an ace from a deck of cards that has no aces? We don't have all the building blocks we need in sufficient quantity and purified concentration to do mass action chemistry with.

It's not that those aces can't exist, it's that we don't know if they did exist or not, and that's why scientists are researching to see if there is any way that they might have existed.

Bottom line: and like I said people don't realize that OOL scientists themselves reject chance as an explanation.

See above as to why abiogenesis doesn't rely on chance as an explanation in the way you mean.

It is the non-scientist (and the theoretical mathematicans) who are optimistic about the 'chance' OOL. The chemists recognize it is impossible for all intents and purposes. You cannot originate life by chance. You have to have a series of chemical pathways that makes the origin of life more probable than not. And that's what OOL scientists seek.

Of course, anything can be organized by chance if the odds are great enough. Something will probably happen by chance if the odds are greater than 50%. That's why framing the issue as one of chance doesn't work.

 

[TB2]

So you need water, and you need dry. That's not a paradox, it's just two different conditions that are needed.

8-10 different reaction conditions that are mutually exclusive (that's just the bare minimum)

Not at all. Science doesn't assume (philosophical) naturalism, nor does it need philosophical naturalism to do the work of science; it has evaluated the track record of methodological naturalism and found it to be superior to anything else. There have been various scientific studies that try to find supernatural effects, like ESP, and the like. Science certainly does not say that abiogenesis can not NOT be true. Do you have a source for that?

Science presupposes methodological naturalism. Science rejects supernatural causation a priori. Science assumes that the origin of life has a natural cause. Science just hasn't proved it yet.

Scientist don't assume that abiogenesis is true, they are merely exploring whether it could be true or not.

Actually they do

It still looks to be a god of the gaps: we don't have a complete story about how biogenesis might work, so it didn't happen. Abiogensis has not been proven nor disproven, it's still an open question

Conclusions are drawn from the evidence we have, not from a lack of evidence. And God is not being proposed as an alternative to fill any gaps. Simply noting science has not empirically demonstrated life can emerge from nonlife

Scientists are not accepting a hypothesis (as if it is true), they're just working on it to see if it might be true.

It is the working hypothesis assumed to be true. What other alternative naturalistic hypothesis is there?

Missing cards is not the point of that analogy. One can alter any analogy to destroy its point

Missing the point. You can't build a house if you don't have the proper tools and materials

It's not that those aces can't exist, it's that we don't know if they did exist or not, and that's why scientists are researching to see if there is any way that they might have existed.

We reasonably know

The bottom line is (1) OOL scientists reject chance as an explanation. (2) There is no natural process that leads inevitably to life (this is empirically established). (3) That leaves contingency (vs chance or determinism/necessity) that life is the result of a unique series of possibly one time occurring circumstances that made the origin of life a high probability event.

(3) Is what OOL is trying to demonstrate. To date they have not. On the face of it based on everything we know about physics and chemistry it doesn't seem possible

Bottom line: science has not empirically demonstrated that life can naturally emerge from nonlife. Skeptics do not have the burden to disprove abiogenesis. It is the proponents of abiogensis who have the burden of proof to demonstrate abiogenesis. This has not been done. Science has not demonstrated that life can naturally emerge from nonlife.

 

[Gus Bovona]

8-10 different reaction conditions that are mutually exclusive (that's just the bare minimum)

I found the article in Nature reproduced (I think) at SciAm here. Can you read that article tell me where they go wrong with regard to the paradox of the mutually exclusive conditions.

Here, perhaps, is the money quote:

The idea is that, with each cycle of wetting, the weaker molecules, or those that could not protect themselves by binding to others, were destroyed. Bonfio and her team demonstrated this in a study this year, in which they attempted to convert simple fatty acids into more-complex lipids resembling those found in modern cell membranes. The researchers created mixtures of lipids, and found that the simple ones were destroyed by water, while the larger, more complex ones accumulated. “At some point, you would have enough of these lipids for them to form membranes,” she says. In other words, there might be a Goldilocks amount of water: not so much that biological molecules are destroyed too quickly, but not so little that nothing changes.

Science presupposes methodological naturalism. Science rejects supernatural causation a priori.

No, supernatural causation can be seen via methodological naturalism. That's what all the ESP studies were about (when done correctly). If an effect had been there, that transcended time or space (like ESP), that would have been evidence for literally the supernatural, transcending time and space.

Science assumes that the origin of life has a natural cause. Science just hasn't proved it yet.

I already addressed this a previous post. Science only assumes a natural cause to life as the starting point for a research on it. If someone wants to research a supernatural cause for life, go for it. No final assumptions either way are required for either research project.

Actually they do

1. Link?

2. No scientist would have to assume abiogenesis (in the strong sense you mean) in order to study it.

Conclusions are drawn from the evidence we have, not from a lack of evidence. And God is not being proposed as an alternative to fill any gaps. Simply noting science has not empirically demonstrated life can emerge from nonlife

Agreed. They haven't shown, either, that life can not emerge from non-life. Agnostic, as I said before.

It is the working hypothesis assumed to be true. What other alternative naturalistic hypothesis is there?

ANY work on ANY hypothesis has to assume (in the weak sense of the word) it to be true. Don't equivocate on "assume" to say that scientists assume that abiogenesis is true (that is, they've already made up their minds about the conclusion) because they have to assume a naturalistic cause for life as a mere hypothesis, which is *not* making up their minds about the conclusion.

Missing the point. You can't build a house if you don't have the proper tools and materials

We don't know that the proper tools and materials can not exist. That's why we're looking to see if they do exist.

We reasonably know

Can you demonstrate that beyond points you've made that I've already addressed (or at least we're in the process of going through)?

The bottom line is (1) OOL scientists reject chance as an explanation.

This shows no indication that you've read what I've said previously about this.

(2) There is no natural process that leads inevitably to life (this is empirically established).

Are you sure you've looked at every single potential natural process, and ruled all of them out? If so, where is the scientific paper that goes through all of them? BTW, how many are there?

(3) That leaves contingency (vs chance or determinism/necessity) that life is the result of a unique series of possibly one time occurring circumstances that made the origin of life a high probability event.

Are you also counting the number of trials over some period of time?

(3) Is what OOL is trying to demonstrate. To date they have not.

Agreed.

On the face of it based on everything we know about physics and chemistry it doesn't seem possible

"Seem" is doing a lot of work there. All the data, nor all the work, isn't in yet. So, agnostic.

Bottom line: science has not empirically demonstrated that life can naturally emerge from nonlife.

And science has not empirically demonstrated that life can NOT naturally emerge from non life. So, agnostic.

Skeptics do not have the burden to disprove abiogenesis. It is the proponents of abiogensis who have the burden of proof to demonstrate abiogenesis.

Correct.

This has not been done.

Yet.

Science has not demonstrated that life can naturally emerge from nonlife.

And science has not empirically demonstrated that life can NOT naturally emerge from non life. So, agnostic.

 

[TB2]

No, supernatural causation can be seen via methodological naturalism.

My point is not a philosophical one, but a practical one; how science is done in practice. Supernatural causation is rejected from consideration a priori. It's against the "rules." You couldn't get a anything like that published. Scientists cannot entertain supernatural hypotheses. We're not allowed to. We have to compartmentalize any personal beliefs from professional research practice. (I'm not saying it's right; I'm just saying that's how it is; them's the "rules").

However, philosophers absolutely can entertain such possibilities and also draw upon empirical scientific evidence to support philosophical positions and arguments.

 

[TB2]

Are you sure you've looked at every single potential natural process, and ruled all of them out? If so, where is the scientific paper that goes through all of them? BTW, how many are there?

The key word is *inevitable*. I'm speaking of Monod's famous essay on "Chance and Necessity" that frames today's OOL debate. Give me a few days to finish working on that second thread (which will get into all these details)

And science has not empirically demonstrated that life can NOT naturally emerge from non life. So, agnostic.

You're making my point. That's the wrong way to phrase it. Reverse that. We don't accept hypotheses by default as a given proven fact *until* they're disproven. We don't accept them at all. We accept them *when* they're proven.

To clarify, I am not doing apologetics here. I am not attempting to argue a case for the supernatural origin of life. In the present OP I am taking a strictly scientific approach like we would with any hypothesis. I am applying the same level of skepticism that we normally do in science. I see my job here as to simply state the raw reality facts of the situation. And that's what I have attempted to do. So let me recap and clarify:

1. Science assumes a priori that abiognesis is true. It is the working hypothesis in science assumed to (somehow) be true.

2. Science has not empirically demonstrated that life can naturally emerge from nonlife

3. Even more than that, sufficient empirical evidence does not exist to compel rarional belief in the idea that life can naturally emerge from nonlife.

4. Science does not have to prove that abiogenesis CAN'T be true. (Plus, it's almost impossible to prove any negative. Prove to me right now that a unicorn isn't flying around the other side of the sun at this very instant). It is not the job of skeptics but proponents to demonstrate the validity of their theory or hypothesis.

5. It is okay to believe that abiognesis still somehow must be true (YECs believe the same about their models), as long as it is recognized that this is a faith position not an evidence based one.

 

[Gus Bovona]

My point is not a philosophical one, but a practical one; how science is done in practice. Supernatural causation is rejected from consideration a priori.
It's against the "rules." You couldn't get a anything like that published. Scientists cannot entertain supernatural hypotheses. We're not allowed to. We have to compartmentalize any personal beliefs from professional research practice. (I'm not saying it's right; I'm just saying that's how it is; them's the "rules").

Your claim is refuted by this study that attempted to find an effect of prayer on cardiac patients (which would clearly be supernatural): " Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer," published in the American Heart Journal, Volume 151, Issue 4, April 2006, Pages 934-942. Source

Sure looks like science to me. There are other studies on various supernatural effects, too.

 

[Gus Bovona]

1. Science assumes a priori that abiognesis is true.

You're repeating your point to which I have already responded without acknowledging my response.

 

[TB2]

Your claim is refuted by this study that attempted to find an effect of prayer on cardiac patients (which would clearly be supernatural): " Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer," published in the American Heart Journal, Volume 151, Issue 4, April 2006, Pages 934-942. Source

Sure looks like science to me. There are other studies on various supernatural effects, too.

The study documents the health benefits of humans praying. Did the study scientifically prove that God exists?

 

[TB2]

You're repeating your point to which I have already responded without acknowledging my response.

I acknowledged your response. I'm telling you you're incorrect. I think I know what I'm talking about having published scientific research. If I try to smuggle in or prove supernatural causation my paper would be rejected. Modern science rejects supernatural causation a priori. Modern science only deals in natural causation. This is the definition of science today. This is how it's framed in the philosophy of science. Heck, this is what federal court cases have ruled.

 

[Gus Bovona]

The study documents the health benefits of humans praying. Did the study scientifically prove that God exists?

That wasn't the object of the study, nor is God existing the only supernatural claim. Remember, the specific issue here is whether science can study the supernatural.

 

[Gus Bovona]

I acknowledged your response. I'm telling you you're incorrect.

An acknowledgement of a response does not equal addressing the points of the response. What you did was to merely tell me I was wrong for all the same reasons that I rebutted (successfully or not) and which rebuttal remains unaddressed.

I think I know what I'm talking about having published scientific research. If I try to smuggle in or prove supernatural causation my paper would be rejected.

There's a necessary step before supernatural causation, and that is whether some hypothesized supernatural effect actually happens. If you could do a study that showed that ESP exists, beyond chance effects, with all safeguards in place, you'd have the first step in establishing supernatural causation. Now, for something as paradigm-exploding as that, one study is not the end.

If your methodology is proper and the study is well-constructed, the reason why your paper wouldn't be accepted is not because science **can't** study the supernatural, but because (perhaps) of bias on the part of the editors or reviewers.

Modern science rejects supernatural causation a priori. Modern science only deals in natural causation. This is the definition of science today. This is how it's framed in the philosophy of science. Heck, this is what federal court cases have ruled.

Maybe some scientists do that, but science need not. Science can continue on quite well while studying and exploring the supernatural, as long as one first demonstrates some phenomenon for which naturalistic causes are plausibly ruled out. What's stopping that?

 

[TB2]

My comments were not meant to be controversial. Nor were they meant to start an argument. This is straightforward stuff. There's really nothing to argue about. I'm just telling you how it is. I didn't say it was right. I'm simply telling how things work in the professional academic scientific community. To be the President of the United States one has to be at least 35 years of age. One could argue that's not fair. Lets say for argument sake that it is unfair. But fair or not, that doesn't change the reality of situation. And that's all I'm telling you: the reality of the situation. No more, no less. Supernatural hypotheses are rejected by science a priori. Federal court cases have ruled on it like McLean vs. Arkansas Board of Education (1982):

"In addition to the fallacious pedagogy of the two model approach, Section 4(a) lacks legitimate educational value because "creation-science" as defined in that section is simply not science. Several witnesses suggested definitions of science. A descriptive definition was said to be that science is what is "accepted by the scientific community" and is "what scientists do." The obvious implication of this description is that, in a free society, knowledge does not require the imprimatur of legislation in order to become science.

More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).

One of the stated goals of the Discovery Institute with regard to Intelligent Design was to "overthrow materialism" in science and allow for theistic hypotheses in science. And that's one of the things that doomed the ID cause and resulted in its worst loss in Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District (2005). As one newspaper reported:

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III, a Republican appointed by President Bush, did not confine his opinion to the missteps of a local school board. Instead he explicitly sought to vanquish intelligent design, the argument that aspects of life are so complex as to require the hand, subtle or not, of a supernatural creator. This theory, he said, relies on the unprovable existence of a Christian God and therefore is not science.

"The overwhelming evidence is that Intelligent Design is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism and not a scientific theory," Jones wrote in a 139-page decision. "It is an extension of the Fundamentalists' view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution."

Is there a definite naturalistic, materialist bias in science? Of course there is. Does that make it right? No. I'm not saying it's right. I'm just telling you the reality of the current situation. Modern science today rules out supernatural causation a priori. A supernatural hypothesis is by (today's current) definition, not a scientific hypothesis.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying how it is.

 

[Gus Bovona]

My comments were not meant to be controversial. Nor were they meant to start an argument. This is straightforward stuff. There's really nothing to argue about. I'm just telling you how it is. I didn't say it was right. I'm simply telling how things work in the professional academic scientific community. To be the President of the United States one has to be at least 35 years of age. One could argue that's not fair. Lets say for argument sake that it is unfair. But fair or not, that doesn't change the reality of situation. And that's all I'm telling you: the reality of the situation. No more, no less. Supernatural hypotheses are rejected by science a priori. Federal court cases have ruled on it like McLean vs. Arkansas Board of Education (1982):

"In addition to the fallacious pedagogy of the two model approach, Section 4(a) lacks legitimate educational value because "creation-science" as defined in that section is simply not science. Several witnesses suggested definitions of science. A descriptive definition was said to be that science is what is "accepted by the scientific community" and is "what scientists do." The obvious implication of this description is that, in a free society, knowledge does not require the imprimatur of legislation in order to become science.

More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).

One of the stated goals of the Discovery Institute with regard to Intelligent Design was to "overthrow materialism" in science and allow for theistic hypotheses in science. And that's one of the things that doomed the ID cause and resulted in its worst loss in Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District (2005). As one newspaper reported:

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III, a Republican appointed by President Bush, did not confine his opinion to the missteps of a local school board. Instead he explicitly sought to vanquish intelligent design, the argument that aspects of life are so complex as to require the hand, subtle or not, of a supernatural creator. This theory, he said, relies on the unprovable existence of a Christian God and therefore is not science.

"The overwhelming evidence is that Intelligent Design is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism and not a scientific theory," Jones wrote in a 139-page decision. "It is an extension of the Fundamentalists' view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution."

Is there a definite naturalistic, materialist bias in science? Of course there is. Does that make it right? No. I'm not saying it's right. I'm just telling you the reality of the current situation. Modern science today rules out supernatural causation a priori. A supernatural hypothesis is by (today's current) definition, not a scientific hypothesis.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying how it is.

Can you address my previous point about the scientific studies into ESP, intercessory prayer, and the like? Wasn't that science? Wasn't the prayer study published in a scientific journal?