Re: Ool - out at first base?

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 12:37:42 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:

On 14/12/2024 4:19 am, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:51:36 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
 

On 10/12/2024 2:35 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 16:54:56 +1100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
>

We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.
>
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.
>
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
>
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
>
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
>
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
>
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.
>

Please provide the mathematical calculations which support
your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars; no
"but it seems too long!" whining.

>

>
At some point this would need to be calculated and quantified, so valid
request.
>
My discussion at this stage though is a line of reasoning that in
principle may significantly reduce the presumed probabilistic resources
available for the formation of an autonomous protocell.
>
In summary the argument is: if a hypothesised little warm pond (or
thermal vent, etc) has virtually zero chance of producing this
protocell, then no amount of ponds and planets will help:
>
P(OoL) = N_ponds x N_planets x P(protocell) x P(post-protocell)
>
If P(protocell) -> 0, then P(OoL) -> 0
>
Of course, it remains to be demonstrated that P(protocell) -> 0, but
would you agree with the logic of the argument?
>

Logic is worthless absent data, and can prove (or disprove)
nothing. Your argument is as valid as that of the Fermi
"Paradox" or arguments regarding the number of angels that
can dance on a pinpoint; i.e., of zero value without data.
So again, please provide the mathematical calculations which
support your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars.

>

>
You're avoiding the question. Establishing the overall logic and
assumptions of a hypothesis is sensible before investing in the heavy
lifting of numerically testing it.
>

Wrong. Logic (if not erroneous, tautological or specious)
can tell you what *might* be worth investigating, but
discussions of specifics prior to data acquisition through,
at a minimum, preliminary experiment and/or investigation,
are a waste of time*.

First idea, THEN investigation, and only then discussion of
the results of the investigation. Unless it's a late-night
beer party in the dorm, in which anything stupid and/or
useless is fair game.

*And speaking of wastes of time, I'm abandoning this one.

>

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov