Re: OoL - out at first base?

On 2024-12-12 12:46 p.m., LDagget wrote:

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 14:10:58 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
 

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 19:12:36 +0000, j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com
(LDagget) wrote:
>

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 17:27:01 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 08:32:42 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 12/10/24 11:32 PM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:57:43 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip for focus]
>

  Self-catalyzing time for a strand of RNA is probably on the order of
minutes.  A black smoker need only be present for few years, and the
early earth had a much hotter interior means that there were at least
millions of them.  As SJ Gould remarked "life may be as common as
quartz". Indeed.  All you need is hot water and a thermal or chemical
gradient and you're good to go.

>
If that is the case, why have we not seen any new life forms develop
from scratch in the last several billion years with every form of life
we know descending from a single origin?
>
I know the typical response is that in the early earth, there were
possibly numerous life forms with one dominant one devouring the
others but that seems a bit of a stretch; it doesn't explain why there
is no trace of anything developing in later stages and no one has ever
been able to create laboratory conditions that have allowed new life
to develop. Miller-Urey got as far as amino acids but that is a long
way from a life form.
>
Just to be clear, I am not endorsing MarkE's arguments; I'm simply
challenging the Gould statement and the "all you need" comment.
>

The new life forms don't have any ecological niches available, because
they're already occupied by fully adapted life.  You'd have to have some
strong advantage to prevail (it does happen, but rarely).

>
Hmmm .... lots of niches for the development of the many many millions
of life forms that have evolved over billions of years but no niches
available for new forms to evolve. As I said, sounds like a bit of a
stretch.

>
Only if you fail to think about it.
For new life it evolve, it has to have a significant supply of ready
food/energy to power its emerging metabolism. The initial chemical
hypercycles would not be expected to be efficient in the way they
convert
their primary energy source into the synthesis of derived chemical
structures like specific lipids and polymers.
>
Moreover, any such reservoir of protolife would be a rich feeding ground
for life that had already evolved.

>
All of which seems to contradict Gould's statement and Eric's comment
that all you need is hot water and a thermal or chemical gradient and
you're good to go - that is what I was challenging.
>
MarkE and his fellow ID travellers are wrong in trying to use the
exceptionality of OOL as some sort of proof of a Designer but that
doesn't change its exceptionality.

 No. It takes creative misreading to claim that.
Perhaps that's a bit harsh but if you don't really understand
the thermodynamics and kinetics of biochemistry --- sufficiently
to speculate intelligently about potential pathways towards
abiogenesis --- then attempting to understand what competent people
write is going to be very difficult.
 As for the "all you need" comment, it's fair to add something about
and time to 'evolve' without being eaten by life that beat you to it.
 

Even fairer to grant that, in context (OoL), that is a given. No need to be explicit.
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)