Science Law - Life Comes From Life

[Rumraket]

And as I pointed out to you, you seem to be very selective about what kind of simulation work you believe and how strongly you believe it

The validity of the use of abstract chemistry depends on the context and how you use it. there is a big difference between

A) A model is true beyond reasonable doubt because it has been shown to be true with abstract chemistry. (you)

No, that's not me. I have not claimed the model is true beyond reasonable doubt. Rather, I have corrected YOUR claim that ALL models of metabolism-first, as explanations for the origin of life, are wrong because A PARTICULAR TYPE of model showed that a metabolism without genetic polymers cannot reliably pass on information.

and

B) A model is wrong because even with abstract chemistry the model fails to succeed (me)

do you see the difference?

Yeah, first of all your are assigning to me a claim I'm not making, and second you are changing the tune of your own claim. Now you are apparently conceding that the results only aply to "a model" or "the model", rather than all types of metabolism-first models.

plus the fact that I am in no way asserting that the wrong or fallacious just because it is based on abstract chemistry

Thank you, there is no shame in being able to change one's mind about how far-reaching you previously thought the implications of a particular study are.

I am simply pointing out the fact that the model is intrinsically less parsimonious than a model that would use real chemistry. (I even admitted that ID has the same problem)

I agree. In general, real chemistry is preferable to computer models.

The article you link is to a study that shows that SOME types of pre-biological metabolic networks can't evolve. But it is a computer simulation of SOME types of pre-biological metabolic networks.

the article that I linked, provides a constrain towards MF models, what you have to do is show that your article provides a way to avoid that constrain.

I believe I have done so already. I will try again but essentially I can only repeat myself here. In the paper "Evolution before genes", the sort of metabolism they simulate introduces the concept of "cores", which is really just another term for compartmentalization. Something "encloses" a particular metabolism so it persists within this compartment. Whatever this compartment is, they just call it a "core". This could be a lipid vesicle, it could be an inorganic mineral structure, it could be proteinoid microspheres, or what have you - the model is abstract so doesn't really say which one it is. In any case, once compartmentalization is included in the simulation, compositional information can be transmitted reliably enough from compartment to compartment, or from binary fission of compartments, or from fusion of compartments, so that compartments can inherit traits acquired by their ancestors andhorizontally from their competitors. This enables selection among compartments and their traits, and thus we have evolution.

the point that I am making is that your article doesn't even try to solve that problem.

Then you are simply just mistaken. It happens to all of us.

 

[leroy]

Yeah, first of all your are assigning to me a claim I'm not making, and second you are changing the tune of your own claim. Now you are apparently conceding that the results only aply to "a model" or "the model", rather than all types of metabolism-first models.

I apologize for that, with "You" I meant HWN. who openly claims that the model is true beyond reasonable doubt.


The article that I quoted provides a constrain towards MF models that seems to apply to all models, (including "Evolution before genes") if you think there is an exception feel free to provide it.

plus the fact that I am in no way asserting that the model is wrong or fallacious just because it is based on abstract chemistry

Thank you, there is no shame in being able to change one's mind about how far-reaching you previously thought the implications of a particular study are.

Agree, but in this particular case, I did not change my mind, I never claimed that the article is wrong for that reason.

I believe I have done so already. I will try again but essentially I can only repeat myself here. In the paper "Evolution before genes", the sort of metabolism they simulate introduces the concept of "cores", which is really just another term for compartmentalization. Something "encloses" a particular metabolism so it persists within this compartment. Whatever this compartment is, they just call it a "core". This could be a lipid vesicle, it could be an inorganic mineral structure, it could be proteinoid microspheres, or what have you - the model is abstract so doesn't really say which one it is. In any case, once compartmentalization is included in the simulation, compositional information can be transmitted reliably enough from compartment to compartment, or from binary fission of compartments, or from fusion of compartments, so that compartments can inherit traits acquired by their ancestors andhorizontally from their competitors. This enables selection among compartments and their traits, and thus we have evolution.

there is nothing in that paragraph that I am not willing to grant, the problem is that you still haven't explained how the problem is solved, because the article doesn't even try to solve that particular problem.


the problem being that when compounds reach a certain level of complexity compounds lose properties which are essential

 

[Rumraket]

The article that I quoted provides a constrain towards MF models that seems to apply to all models, (including "Evolution before genes") if you think there is an exception feel free to provide it.

I did.

The previous work of the authors, the one you think "seems to apply to all models", did NOT include the concept of compartmentalization.

The later one, by the same authors, DOES include the concept of compartmentalization.

... and this substantially alters the outcome of the model such that information can be passed reliably on to offspring, or coopted by horizontal transfer from competitors, and therefore can evolve because traits can be inherited and selected amongst.

So I did in fact provide the exception by explaining how the same authors who wrote the first study, has shown with a second study that other scenarios can indeed evolve.

So we're done. You might not like this, or maybe you just don't understand how that can be. Tough shit, get over it.

I believe I have done so already. I will try again but essentially I can only repeat myself here. In the paper "Evolution before genes", the sort of metabolism they simulate introduces the concept of "cores", which is really just another term for compartmentalization. Something "encloses" a particular metabolism so it persists within this compartment. Whatever this compartment is, they just call it a "core". This could be a lipid vesicle, it could be an inorganic mineral structure, it could be proteinoid microspheres, or what have you - the model is abstract so doesn't really say which one it is. In any case, once compartmentalization is included in the simulation, compositional information can be transmitted reliably enough from compartment to compartment, or from binary fission of compartments, or from fusion of compartments, so that compartments can inherit traits acquired by their ancestors andhorizontally from their competitors. This enables selection among compartments and their traits, and thus we have evolution.

there is nothing in that paragraph that I am not willing to grant, the problem is that you still haven't explained how the problem is solved, because the article doesn't even try to solve that particular problem.

What part of the idea that having a metabolism enclosed in a compartment allows it to be reliably inherited by an offspring compartment, or horizontally transferred to a competing compartment, is escaping your comprehension here?

Is it because you don't understand that evolution requires a mechanism of stable inheritance? Is it because you don't understand what natural selection is?

the problem being that when compounds reach a certain level of complexity compounds lose properties which are essential

... unless they are enclosed in compartments. That's the point. Are you getting it any time soon?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Beyond the dishonesty you are displaying in the above post, you have also admitted that you would deny evidence if it suited you. Thus, your own actions rule you out as being a judge of what is reasonable.

Really? do you really what to have this type of childish conversation?

No, but you keep starting it. Do not be upset with me, because I can provide the evidence that actually ends it.

I am in a very hard position because if y refuse to answer to all that irrelevant rubbish you will accuse for running away, but if I answer and expose your lies (one again) I will open the door for an other 30 pages of an irrelevant discussion on irrelevant rubbish. Honestly what should I do?

When did you expose a lie? Care to cite or apologize for lying? Perhaps if you stopped making claims that you cannot back, this would end.

So I will tell you what of all the irrelevant points that you claim I am ignoring, lying, or misrepresenting, select 1 (just 1) select your best example of be being dishonest and I will address that for 1 last time.

When did you become in-charge of this forum? Dandan/Leroy, when I see you make an accusation, I will ask you to back it up with citation. Now, you can act like an adult and provide said citation or retract the claim, but you cannot dictate to me how I am going to treat you.

with irrelevant rubbish I mean> anything that is not related with you showing that natural abiogenesis is true beyond reasonable doubt or with you showing that your model(https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-7-1) is better than mine.

I have done that, Rumraket has done that, and you just keep running from it.

I of course affirm the oposite and am willing to share the burden proof.

Once you stop running, that is. I am still waiting to see what evidence you can provide for JesusDidIt. Remember, arguments are not evidence.

With all that said, I guess I must quote this once again:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

Exactly, I never said that I can prove that Jesus did it,

When did I say prove anything? I have only ever asked you to defend it like you said you would. Again, you can either cite me saying that or apologize for lying.

Still waiting for you to even acknowledge this. Care to act honest for once in your life or would you rather keep running? You are so good at running after all.

he_who_is_nobody wrote
The fact that scientists are actually studying it and showing that it is possible is enough for a normal person not to have reasonable doubt.

again justify your answer, you are just asserting that natural abiogenesis is true beyond reasonable doubt, but you haven't justified your claim. all you are saying is> is true, because it has been shown to be true.

Wrong. I keep linking you back to Rumraket's post, in-which he actually cites and quotes real scientific evidence. You know, that think that you cannot muster for your hypothesis. What more do you want me to do through the internet? All I can do is cite actual scientific studies.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:


You tried this already with Rumraket. The article Rumraket provided is done by the same authors discussing a different pathway. In addition, Rumraket also points out that they have published more since this paper. Again, evidence that you do not pay attention to what people tell you. Thus, metabolism first has not been falsified; one pathway was, but not the whole thing.

once again you are just affirming that the point has been answered, please quote the exact portion of "your paper" that solves the problem presented in the other paper, so far your answer is> Rumraket says so therefore it most be true.

That is not what I said at all. I said "metabolism first has not been falsified; one pathway was, but not the whole thing." Beyond that, if you want to see a quote so bad, go read the link I keep providing, because Rumraket has already provided it. Or you can just keep running, since what you keep asking for has already been provided for you months ago.

as I said before the article doesn't even try to solve the problem presented in "my article" your article explicitly explains that it is trying to solve 3 specific problems

What part of the idea that having a metabolism enclosed in a compartment allows it to be reliably inherited by an offspring compartment, or horizontally transferred to a competing compartment, is escaping your comprehension here?

Is it because you don't understand that evolution requires a mechanism of stable inheritance? Is it because you don't understand what natural selection is?

Here we restricted ourselves to three issues: (i) the probability of the nucleation of reflexively autocatalytic networks, as questioned e.g. by Lifson [26], (ii) the side reaction problem, as raised by Orgel [41] and Szathmáry [28], and (iii) the question of Darwinian evolvability of autocatalytic polymer sets

,https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-7-1

none of these problems represents the problem presented in my article.

I did.

The previous work of the authors, the one you think "seems to apply to all models", did NOT include the concept of compartmentalization.

The later one, by the same authors, DOES include the concept of compartmentalization.

... and this substantially alters the outcome of the model such that information can be passed reliably on to offspring, or coopted by horizontal transfer from competitors, and therefore can evolve because traits can be inherited and selected amongst.

So I did in fact provide the exception by explaining how the same authors who wrote the first study, has shown with a second study that other scenarios can indeed evolve.

So we're done. You might not like this, or maybe you just don't understand how that can be. Tough shit, get over it.

well it is obvious that you wont provide any new contribution, so lets go to the second point.

Nothing new needs to be provided. However, just keep running. It is all you can do.

leroy wrote:
2 Parsimony: your model is based on abstract chemistry (imaginary chemistry) the model makes an additional assumption “that this imaginary chemistry might be applicable to the real world, here we have a tie; because my model also presupposes that a designer might exist. We are both making an additional assumption

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Do you really think abstract chemistry is equivalent to magic? First off, we know chemistry is real, when has anyone shown magic to be real? Based on that alone, parsimony defaults to reality (i.e. chemistry and not magic). Beyond that, as Rumraket pointed out, the paper that falsified one pathway for metabolism first is based on this same abstract chemistry. Strange how you can take one of their papers as gospel, yet raise doubts about the other when they use the same methods. You cannot have it both ways. Either their abstract (not imaginary) chemistry is right or it is not.

1 I am not making a big deal out of the fact that the model is based on abstract chemistry, I am just pointing out to the fact the use os abstract chemistry rather than real chemistry makes your model intisicly less parsimonious than a model that uses real chemistry.

Yet still far more parsimonious than a model that relies on magic. Let us not forget that JesusDidIt is nothing more than magic.

2 we are talking hypotheticsl chemistry vs a hypothetical designer, we know that chemistry exists and we know that intelligent designers exist, but we don't know if the particular chemistry that you need is real, in the same way we don't know if the particular intelligent designer that I need is real, this is why I am calling it a tie.

No one cares what you are calling it. Again, mine defaults to chemistry and yours defaults to magic. Remember, JesusDidIt is magic, even if you want to call it designer. Those are not equal by any stretch of the imagination. Stop pretending they are.

3 The validity of the use of abstract chemistry depends on the context and how you use it. there is a big difference between

A) A model is true beyond reasonable doubt because it has been shown to be true with abstract chemistry. (you)

and

B) A model is wrong because even with abstract chemistry the model fails to succeed (me)

do you see the difference?

What? What is this me and you at the end of those? You are claiming that metabolism first has been falsified based on abstract chemistry. When I point out that there is a work around, you claim it is not good enough because it is based on abstract chemistry. You are the one trying to have it both ways. Stop being a hypocrite and decide if you are going to accept this abstract chemistry, because you cannot have it both ways.

 

[leroy]

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
leroy wrote:
Exactly, I never said that I can prove that Jesus did it,


When did I say prove anything? I have only ever asked you to defend it like you said you would. Again, you can either cite me saying that or apologize for lying.

Really, of all the supposed lies and me supposedly running away, that is the one example that you picked? Ok perhaps I misrepresented your claim a little bit, for that I apologize.

When did you expose a lie? Care to cite or apologize for lying? Perhaps if you stopped making claims that you cannot back, this would end.

sure I can provide an example of a lie.

[, you have also admitted that you would deny evidence if it suited you.

Anyone can look at the link, read my actual words and see that I didn’t say that I would deny any evidence if it suit me.

Wrong. I keep linking you back to Rumraket's post, in-which he actually cites and quotes real scientific evidence. You know, that think that you cannot muster for your hypothesis. What more do you want me to do through the internet? All I can do is cite actual scientific studies.

Not even Rumraket nor the authors of the article would make such a radical claim, so justify your answer, under what basis do you affirm that the article proves thst “natural abiogenesis” is true beyond reasonable doubt.

But ok, you obviously dont have nothing else to add.

That is not what I said at all. I said "metabolism first has not been falsified; one pathway was, but not the whole thing." Beyond that, if you want to see a quote so bad, go read the link I keep providing, because Rumraket has already provided it. Or you can just keep running, since what you keep asking for has already been provided for you months ago.

How can you accuse me from running away if I am anwering directly every time and I even explain why I think Rumraket is wrong,

Rumraket wrote:
What part of the idea that having a metabolism enclosed in a compartment allows it to be reliably inherited by an offspring compartment, or horizontally transferred to a competing compartment, is escaping your comprehension here?

Is it because you don't understand that evolution requires a mechanism of stable inheritance? Is it because you don't understand what natural selection is?

Because the issue is not the lack of “selectivity” the issue is that when reaching a critical size “compounds” loose essential properties required for template selection.

Your paper does not affirm nor denies this point; it is just an independent paper that attempts to solve other problems,

Yet still far more parsimonious than a model that relies on magic. Let us not forget that JesusDidIt is nothing more than magic.

Well why? Justify your assertion,
As you said before, whether if you what to call it magic or design is irrelevant these are just labels.

What you have to do is:

1 define magic

2 Explain why “Jesus did it” is magic. Explain abstract chemistry is not magic

3 explain why is “magic” (under that definition) absurd, incoherent, fallacious or whatever your position is regarding magic.

What? What is this me and you at the end of those? You are claiming that metabolism first has been falsified based on abstract chemistry. When I point out that there is a work around, you claim it is not good enough because it is based on abstract chemistry. You are the one trying to have it both ways. Stop being a hypocrite and decide if you are going to accept this abstract chemistry, because you cannot have it both ways.

That has been answered, as I said the validity of abstract chemistry is dependent on the context. So even though both papers use abstract chemistry (AC), your paper uses AC to support an assertion while mine uses it to negate an assertion.

+The fact that I am not saying that your paper is wrong because it uses AC, I am simply saying that it is intrinsically less parsimonious than a model that would use real chemistry.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
leroy wrote:
Exactly, I never said that I can prove that Jesus did it,


When did I say prove anything? I have only ever asked you to defend it like you said you would. Again, you can either cite me saying that or apologize for lying.

Really, of all the supposed lies and me supposedly running away, that is the one example that you picked? Ok perhaps I misrepresented your claim a little bit, for that I apologize.

:facepalm:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]When did you become in-charge of this forum? Dandan/Leroy, when I see you make an accusation, I will ask you to back it up with citation. Now, you can act like an adult and provide said citation or retract the claim, but you cannot dictate to me how I am going to treat you.

However, kudos for finally acting like an adult and admitting to your mistake. I hope this is a new trend, but I will not hold my breath.

When did you expose a lie? Care to cite or apologize for lying? Perhaps if you stopped making claims that you cannot back, this would end.

sure I can provide an example of a lie.

[, you have also admitted that you would deny evidence if it suited you.

Anyone can look at the link, read my actual words and see that I didn’t say that I would deny any evidence if it suit me.

leroy[/url]"]

At the very moment that the evidence shows I did do it.

What did you do while you were asleep last night LEROY?

Do you remember?

What if I showed you a video recording of you going out in your pajamas and urinating on your next door neighbours' car? Would you deny the observable evidence?

If you were being consistent, you would. But I don't think anyone imagines that you could be consistent.

yes to be honest I would still believe that I am innocent even if you show me the video.


you would need more than just a video to convince me that I urinated the car.

As I said, you stating that you would deny evidence if it suited you. Just how dishonest can one person get? Do you think people cannot read? Pathetic!

Wrong. I keep linking you back to Rumraket's post, in-which he actually cites and quotes real scientific evidence. You know, that think that you cannot muster for your hypothesis. What more do you want me to do through the internet? All I can do is cite actual scientific studies.

Not even Rumraket nor the authors of the article would make such a radical claim, so justify your answer, under what basis do you affirm that the article proves thst “natural abiogenesis” is true beyond reasonable doubt.

Now you want it beyond a reasonable doubt? Thus, it is not good enough to have scientific evidence for it, but it has to meet what you think is reasonable doubt. Well, as I keep pointing out, you already said you would deny evidence (see above), so I am not sure what you think it reasonable. However, I do think providing scientific articles that explains the working models would be called reasonable by a reasonable person.

But ok, you obviously dont have nothing else to add.

Again, there is nothing else to add. A reasonable person would accept scientific articles, but you already admitted that you would deny evidence (see above).

That is not what I said at all. I said "metabolism first has not been falsified; one pathway was, but not the whole thing." Beyond that, if you want to see a quote so bad, go read the link I keep providing, because Rumraket has already provided it. Or you can just keep running, since what you keep asking for has already been provided for you months ago.

How can you accuse me from running away if I am anwering directly every time and I even explain why I think Rumraket is wrong,

Just because you respond does not mean you have answered anything. As I have already pointed out, Rumraket posted and you responded with nothing but your incredulity, than you just kept repeating that incredulity and asking things that were already addressed. I am sorry, but just because you can post something does not mean you actually made a response. You still have never addressed anything Rumraket said with anything of substance. That is why you are running.

Rumraket wrote:
What part of the idea that having a metabolism enclosed in a compartment allows it to be reliably inherited by an offspring compartment, or horizontally transferred to a competing compartment, is escaping your comprehension here?

Is it because you don't understand that evolution requires a mechanism of stable inheritance? Is it because you don't understand what natural selection is?

Because the issue is not the lack of “selectivity” the issue is that when reaching a critical size “compounds” loose essential properties required for template selection.

Your paper does not affirm nor denies this point; it is just an independent paper that attempts to solve other problems,

Rumraket[/url]"]... unless they are enclosed in compartments. That's the point. Are you getting it any time soon?

:facepalm:

And this is exactly what I was talking about above. All you do is repeat things that have already been addressed.

Yet still far more parsimonious than a model that relies on magic. Let us not forget that JesusDidIt is nothing more than magic.

Well why? Justify your assertion,
As you said before, whether if you what to call it magic or design is irrelevant these are just labels.

What you have to do is:

1 define magic

2 Explain why “Jesus did it” is magic. Explain abstract chemistry is not magic

3 explain why is “magic” (under that definition) absurd, incoherent, fallacious or whatever your position is regarding magic.

:lol:

You are trying to claim that JesusDidIt is not magic? How exactly do you know that? Think of it this way, you are proposing a supernatural being as your hypothesis. If your supernatural explanation is not invoking magic, than what exactly is it invoking? Beyond that, if you want to claim that a design origin for life is natural, than what exactly are you arguing?

Beyond that, did you really just ask why abstract chemistry is not magic? What a joke!

:lol:

What? What is this me and you at the end of those? You are claiming that metabolism first has been falsified based on abstract chemistry. When I point out that there is a work around, you claim it is not good enough because it is based on abstract chemistry. You are the one trying to have it both ways. Stop being a hypocrite and decide if you are going to accept this abstract chemistry, because you cannot have it both ways.

That has been answered, as I said the validity of abstract chemistry is dependent on the context. So even though both papers use abstract chemistry (AC), your paper uses AC to support an assertion while mine uses it to negate an assertion.

What does that even mean? At this point is just seems like you are throwing words out. Which is amazing, because normally all you answer with is incredulity.

+The fact that I am not saying that your paper is wrong because it uses AC, I am simply saying that it is intrinsically less parsimonious than a model that would use real chemistry.

I agree with that. I just pointed out that it is far more parsimonious than a supernatural explanation.

 

[leroy]

As I said, you stating that you would deny evidence if it suited you. Just how dishonest can one person get? Do you think people cannot read? Pathetic!

.

Again, anyone can read my actual words and note that I am not saying that I would deny the evidence, all I said is that you would need more than just a video to convince me in that particular (hypothetical) example.

Just to be clear, I would not deny that the video is there, and I would not deny that the video counts as evidence, all I am saying is that you would need additional evidence to convince me.

At this point you can argue that you misunderstood my point, and I would interpret that as a fare mistake.

Now you want it beyond a reasonable doubt? Thus, it is not good enough to have scientific evidence for it, but it has to meet what you think is reasonable doubt. Well, as I keep pointing out, you already said you would deny evidence (see above), so I am not sure what you think it reasonable. However, I do think providing scientific articles that explains the working models would be called reasonable by a reasonable person

.

With “knowing beyond reasonable doubt” I simply mean that we can grant something as true, even if we are not 100% sure.

We both agree that general theory of relativity, heliocentric model, Big Bang, that Donald Trump is the US president, that triceratops existed in the past etc. are true beyond reasonable doubt, do you honestly think that your paper proves that “natural abiogenesis” is true beyond reasonable daubt? (obviously not) so if you what, change your original answer and explain why is “natural abiogenesis” is true beyond reasonable doubt.

Again, there is nothing else to add. A reasonable person would accept scientific articles, but you already admitted that you would deny evidence (see above)

If you would have provided an article that concludes that “natural abiogenesis” is true beyond reasonable doubt you would have a point.

+ the fact that in the past you have rejected many of my claims even when I support them with journals (premise 2 in the KCA would be an example) so the only one who has proven to deny evidence despite the conclusion of scientific articles is you.

You still have never addressed anything Rumraket said with anything of substance

Yes I did, my response to Rum was that the article doesn’t even try to solve the problem presented in the article that I quoted. (the article tries to solve other unrelated problems)
So far nobody has been capably of quoting the portions of the article where the authors try to solve the problem

You are trying to claim that JesusDidIt is not magic?

I don’t know, as I told you earlier, I don’t know what you mean by “magic” so please….

1 define magic

2 Explain why “Jesus did it” is magic. Explain abstract chemistry is not magic

3 explain why is “magic” (under that definition) absurd, incoherent, fallacious or whatever your position is regarding magic.

I agree with that. I just pointed out that it is far more parsimonious than a supernatural explanation.

well why? justify your answer.

How do you measure parsimony?

What does that even mean? At this point is just seems like you are throwing words out. Which is amazing, because normally all you answer with is incredulity

I honestly don’t know how to explained in simpler words. What do you find so hard to understand?

 

[Rumraket]

Yes I did, my response to Rum was that the article doesn’t even try to solve the problem presented in the article that I quoted.

Yes it does. It solves exactly that problem. With compartments.

The article you quoted says the problem is evolvability, because there is a lack of reliable inheritance. Inherited properties are lost because the process of inheritance without compartments is unreliable. This is what leads to the loss of complexity in the earlier model. The rate of passing on information cannot rise to a sufficient level, because the rate of loss becomes too great. So the authors speculate in their earlier work that it was probably because genes were required. That polymers that encode information in the form of sequences of molecules that replicate by templating, which is a much more reliable process, would be required to allow evolution above some threshold of complexity.

But in their later work, they solve this problem with compartments, because they allow more reliable inheritance even without genetics. That is why the paper is called "Evolution before genes". That is why they speak of "cores" in their terminology, as this is just another term for some sort of enclosure that keeps together a metabolic network. Among such cores, there can be evolution, as the cores can exchange products horizontally, or grow and split into smaller cores, or fuse together.

There is no longer the problem of a loss of complexity, because the mechanism of inheritance has sufficient stability once it takes place throuh splitting or fusing compartments.

Done. The fact that you can sit there and type a sentence "the earticle doesn't solve the problem presented in the article I quoted" doesn't make it true. At this stage you are simply telling a demonstrable falsehood.

There are no more excuses now Leroy. Any post you make subsequently, if it does not explicitly agree and concede the point, will be a fucking lie, because you will be making claims you now know to be false.

 

[leroy]

Yes I did, my response to Rum was that the article doesn’t even try to solve the problem presented in the article that I quoted.

Yes it does. It solves exactly that problem. With compartments.

The article you quoted says the problem is evolvability, because there is a lack of reliable inheritance. Inherited properties are lost because the process of inheritance without compartments is unreliable. This is what leads to the loss of complexity in the earlier model. The rate of passing on information cannot rise to a sufficient level, because the rate of loss becomes too great. So the authors speculate in their earlier work that it was probably because genes were required. That polymers that encode information in the form of sequences of molecules that replicate by templating, which is a much more reliable process, would be required to allow evolution above some threshold of complexity.

But in their later work, they solve this problem with compartments, because they allow more reliable inheritance even without genetics. That is why the paper is called "Evolution before genes". That is why they speak of "cores" in their terminology, as this is just another term for some sort of enclosure that keeps together a metabolic network. Among such cores, there can be evolution, as the cores can exchange products horizontally, or grow and split into smaller cores, or fuse together.

There is no longer the problem of a loss of complexity, because the mechanism of inheritance has sufficient stability once it takes place throuh splitting or fusing compartments.

Done. The fact that you can sit there and type a sentence "the earticle doesn't solve the problem presented in the article I quoted" doesn't make it true. At this stage you are simply telling a demonstrable falsehood.

There are no more excuses now Leroy. Any post you make subsequently, if it does not explicitly agree and concede the point, will be a fucking lie, because you will be making claims you now know to be false.

However the difference between you and I is that when I made my assertion I actually did back it up by quoting from the actual paper.

Here we restricted ourselves to three issues: (i) the probability of the nucleation of reflexively autocatalytic networks, as questioned e.g. by Lifson [26], (ii) the side reaction problem, as raised by Orgel [41] and Szathmáry [28], and (iii) the question of Darwinian evolvability of autocatalytic polymer sets, as left open by the previous investigations by Bagley et al. [14,15]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3284417/
.

As anyone can note, the paper did tried to solve some, problems (3 problems) including one evolvability problem, but not the particular problem presented in this paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824406/

 

[Rumraket]

However the difference between you and I is that when I made my assertion I actually did back it up by quoting from the actual paper.

You did not back up any assertions. You continue to ignore what is written.

As anyone can note, the paper did tried to solve some, problems (3 problems) including one evolvability problem, but not the particular problem presented in this paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824406/

That very problem is in fact solved. In the paper you link they show a problem with a particular model called the GARD model (Graded Autocatalysis Replication Domain), that leads to it being unable to evolve increasing complexity, because novel information can't be retained.

As they write: "In sharp contrast with template-dependent replication dynamics, we demonstrate here that replication of compositional information is so inaccurate that fitter compositional genomes cannot be maintained by selection and, therefore, the system lacks evolvability (i.e., it cannot substantially depart from the asymptotic steady-state solution already built-in in the dynamical equations)."

In the later paper, they write: "The problem is that the simplicity of the underlying chemistry in GARD (lipid molecules are either in the assembly or not) allows only as many reactions as there are different molecular species available in the environment. Moreover, the number of distinct lipid types cannot be too high, partly because of practical considerations, but also because increasing diversity implies increasing noise in compotype replication. The restricted diversity of molecules and reactions means that the system will always quickly converge to the state set in stone by the underlying dynamical equations [4]. The only possibility left open for change is the addition or removal of lipid species. Pointing out that altering the food set of a reaction network modifies its dynamics, however, has no relevance for evolution. A combinatorial chemistry like the polymer chemistry described in this article, on the other hand, provides an unlimited diversity of theoretically possible reactions originating from the same food set and a reasonable probability that a reaction network can discover novel cores in its shadow. Also, the permanent incorporation of a new core will extend the shadow, opening up new possibilities. Therefore we argue that such a combinatorial chemistry (or one with similar complexity) is essential for even limited evolution. The complexity of a lipid world is overshadowed by the possibilities enabled by the outlined polymer chemistry, which itself is only a shadow of the world of template-replicating nucleic acids."

So they did solve that problem in the latter part I highlighted in bright green. And in any case, the results of the first study still only apply to the type of metabolism-first scenarios that hypothesize that a proto-metabolic network evolved into cells. So you were wrong when you first brought up the article and claimed "metablism first has been falsified", and you are still wrong now. And you have been wrong all throughout. And you can't seem to just admit that.

 

[leroy]

However the difference between you and I is that when I made my assertion I actually did back it up by quoting from the actual paper.

You did not back up any assertions. You continue to ignore what is written.

As anyone can note, the paper did tried to solve some, problems (3 problems) including one evolvability problem, but not the particular problem presented in this paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824406/

That very problem is in fact solved. In the paper you link they show a problem with a particular model called the GARD model (Graded Autocatalysis Replication Domain), that leads to it being unable to evolve increasing complexity, because novel information can't be retained.

As they write: "In sharp contrast with template-dependent replication dynamics, we demonstrate here that replication of compositional information is so inaccurate that fitter compositional genomes cannot be maintained by selection and, therefore, the system lacks evolvability (i.e., it cannot substantially depart from the asymptotic steady-state solution already built-in in the dynamical equations)."

In the later paper, they write: "The problem is that the simplicity of the underlying chemistry in GARD (lipid molecules are either in the assembly or not) allows only as many reactions as there are different molecular species available in the environment. Moreover, the number of distinct lipid types cannot be too high, partly because of practical considerations, but also because increasing diversity implies increasing noise in compotype replication. The restricted diversity of molecules and reactions means that the system will always quickly converge to the state set in stone by the underlying dynamical equations [4]. The only possibility left open for change is the addition or removal of lipid species. Pointing out that altering the food set of a reaction network modifies its dynamics, however, has no relevance for evolution. A combinatorial chemistry like the polymer chemistry described in this article, on the other hand, provides an unlimited diversity of theoretically possible reactions originating from the same food set and a reasonable probability that a reaction network can discover novel cores in its shadow. Also, the permanent incorporation of a new core will extend the shadow, opening up new possibilities. Therefore we argue that such a combinatorial chemistry (or one with similar complexity) is essential for even limited evolution. The complexity of a lipid world is overshadowed by the possibilities enabled by the outlined polymer chemistry, which itself is only a shadow of the world of template-replicating nucleic acids."

So they did solve that problem in the latter part I highlighted in bright green. And in any case, the results of the first study still only apply to the type of metabolism-first scenarios that hypothesize that a proto-metabolic network evolved into cells. So you were wrong when you first brought up the article and claimed "metablism first has been falsified", and you are still wrong now. And you have been wrong all throughout. And you can't seem to just admit that.

I admit that I was wrong, and I apologize

 

[Laurens]

Science law.... life comes from life

What is life?

If you break it down it's complex chemistry. Where does chemistry come from? It always existed. Life is chemistry given the right conditions.

Saying a sentence like 'life comes from life' has no meaning unless you provide a sensible definition for what life is. You can't call something that vague a scientific law. It's obtuse at best, dishonest at worst.

Sent from my LG-H840 using Tapatalk

 

[Rumraket]

I admit that I was wrong, and I apologize

Then I was wrong when I said you are unable to change your mind. Thank you for that, it takes guts.

 

[leroy]

Science law.... life comes from life

What is life?

If you break it down it's complex chemistry. Where does chemistry come from? It always existed. Life is chemistry given the right conditions.

Saying a sentence like 'life comes from life' has no meaning unless you provide a sensible definition for what life is. You can't call something that vague a scientific law. It's obtuse at best, dishonest at worst.

Sent from my LG-H840 using Tapatalk

The actual law (which is actually a scientific theory) is that low entropy can´t come from high entropy naturally.

Things with low entropy like life, airplanes, and pyramids can´t come from things with high entropy like primordial soups, junk yards, or mountains.

The “law” of a biogenesis is just an example of that “law”

the concept of life (in the context of abiogenesis) has been defined multiple times


this is what I mean by entropy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

 

[Rumraket]

The actual law (which is actually a scientific theory) is that low entropy can´t come from high entropy naturally.

There is no such law, nor theory.

 

[leroy]

The actual law (which is actually a scientific theory) is that low entropy can´t come from high entropy naturally.

There is no such law, nor theory.

Granted, my mistake, it is a fact that low entropy can’t come from high entropy naturally, the theory that explains this fact is represented in some of the “entropy equations”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Statistical_mechanics

and to anticipate atheists answers: No snowflakes do not solve the problem

 

[Rumraket]

There is no such law, nor theory.

Granted, my mistake, it is a fact that low entropy can’t come from high entropy naturally

No, that is also not a fact.

Statistical thermodynamics says that the total entropy of an isolated system will on average always increase. None of the entities around us are isolated systems. Living cells aren't isolated systems, airplanes aren't isolated systems, the Earth isn't an isolated system, proteins aren't isolated systems, metabolic networks aren't isolated systems.

So the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not say the origin of life is impossible, nor that entropy can't decrease in an open system. All the entities around us are open systems. Cells are open systems. Proteins are open systems. DNA is an open system. The Earth, it's atmosphere and the oceans are all open systems.

You keep opening your mouth and making pronouncements on matters of which you know next to nothing. Just stop please.

 

[Rumraket]

and to anticipate atheists answers: No snowflakes do not solve the problem

If your claim that low entropy couldn't naturally arise from higher entropy was true, then snowflakes would be impossible. Liquid water has higher entropy than ice. Snowflakes can form because they are not isolated system, but exist in an environment into which heat (and both energy and matter) can flow. Snowflakes exist in an open system, and in open systems local decreases in entropy can take place at the conversion of energy into less usable forms.

This is also what happens when fire burns organic matter, like sugar, it is converted into much more complex insoluble organic molecules (tars, kerogens, asphalts), and heat is released into the surroundings increasing the total entropy of the system. But again, local decreases of entropy happen (the creation of more complex organic molecules).

When you eat food, your body generates heat, which increases the total entropy of the universe, but that food also fuels the processes whereby cells in your body sustain themselves, grow, divide and so on. In essence, all it takes is energy to reduce local entropy in an open system, and except perhaps the universe as a whole, all systems we know of are either open or closed, not isolated.

Now, all that said, please shut up about thermodynamics, it is clearly another subject about which you know next to nothing.

 

[leroy]

Statistical thermodynamics says that the total entropy of an isolated system will on average always increase. None of the entities around us are isolated systems. Living cells aren't isolated systems, airplanes aren't isolated systems, the Earth isn't an isolated system, proteins aren't isolated systems, metabolic networks aren't isolated systems.

So the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not say the origin of life is impossible, nor that entropy can't decrease in an open system. All the entities around us are open systems. Cells are open systems. Proteins are open systems. DNA is an open system. The Earth, it's atmosphere and the oceans are all open systems.

You keep opening your mouth and making pronouncements on matters of which you know next to nothing. Just stop please.

Wrong statistical thermodynamics don’t care is the system is isolated or not, you can’t get an airplane form a junkyard regardless if the junk yard is open or close.

This is because there are many possible combinations in which “junk” can be organized but only 1 (or few) combinations would produce something that you would call an airplane. And there is not a bias in the laws of nature where a combination that produces an airplane would be favored.

This is why it is said that a junk yard (or primordial soup) has high entropy and an airplane (or life) low entropy.

*in this analogy feel free to change primordial soup for asteroids, deep ocean, a mineralized cave (or whatever what your favorite model of a biogenesis prescribes)

The equations that I quoted, work in both open and closed systems

 

[leroy]

and to anticipate atheists answers: No snowflakes do not solve the problem

If your claim that low entropy couldn't naturally arise from higher entropy was true, then snowflakes would be impossible. Liquid water has higher entropy than ice. Snowflakes can form because they are not isolated system, but exist in an environment into which heat (and both energy and matter) can flow. Snowflakes exist in an open system, and in open systems local decreases in entropy can take place at the conversion of energy into less usable forms.

This is also what happens when fire burns organic matter, like sugar, it is converted into much more complex insoluble organic molecules (tars, kerogens, asphalts), and heat is released into the surroundings increasing the total entropy of the system. But again, local decreases of entropy happen (the creation of more complex organic molecules).

When you eat food, your body generates heat, which increases the total entropy of the universe, but that food also fuels the processes whereby cells in your body sustain themselves, grow, divide and so on. In essence, all it takes is energy to reduce local entropy in an open system, and except perhaps the universe as a whole, all systems we know of are either open or closed, not isolated.

Now, all that said, please shut up about thermodynamics, it is clearly another subject about which you know next to nothing.

We are talking about entropy in the context of statistics, energy heat and energy flow are irrelevant.

In the case of snowflakes we don’t have many different possible macro states (given the correct conditions, all possible sates would produce an hexagonal pattern)

In the case of junkyards and aminoacids, we do have many possible combinations, and only few combinations would produce something that you would call an airplane or life.