Re: Ool - out at first base?

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:16:06 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:

On 12/17/24 5:12 PM, MarkE wrote:

On 17/12/2024 6:33 am, Mark Isaak wrote:

What makes you think that you know enough about the universe to think
that the problems you put forward will not likewise be obviated by
further research?

 
I don't, not with certainty. Hence I put forward possible OoL
showstoppers for scrutiny.
 
To that end, do you think the following recent examples have any merit
at all? I'm not asking if you agree that they're a problem, rather, is
there any legitimacy in addressing them as potentional problems for OoL?
- the tar paradox

>
Probably not a problem. It's easy to imagine mechanisms that could
separate productive products from counterproductive ones.
>

- supply of concentrated nucleotides unbroken for millions of years

>
A problem, yes, but only in the sense that solving any puzzle is a
problem.  A showstarter (where research is the show), not a showstopper.
Also, millions of years may be unnecessary. I suspect that one
bottleneck of abiogenesis is for the proper conditions to come together,
but once they do, a huge step could be taken in months, perhaps hours. I
might be completely wrong about that, but then, others might be wrong
about thinking optimum conditions must persist for millions of years.

I agree and I think that is very similar to PE. One of the mistakes
that people like Ron Dean make about PE is that they think positive
characteristics must be availed of as soon as they arise.
Characteristics that have no particular advantage right now may be
retained if they aren't costing much to retain and there are no
negative effects. A change in environment could suddenly make one or
several of those characteristics advantageous and they come to the
fore either individually or collectively; they do not have to provide
advantage in some carefully orchestrated sequence.