Re: To sum up

On 8/02/2025 11:42 pm, Ernest Major wrote:

On 07/02/2025 06:00, MarkE wrote:

On 6/02/2025 6:07 pm, Ernest Major wrote:

On 06/02/2025 06:29, MarkE wrote:

>
“Researchers have shown that translation of the genetic information stored in our DNA is much more complex than previously thought. This discovery was made by developing a type of advanced microscopy that directly visualizes the translation of the genetic code in a living cell.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190606133759.htm

>
1) Complexity in living cells is not a particularly good proxy for the probability of spontaneous emergence.

>
I assume Davies means abiogenesis, not instantaneous formation.
>
The more complex a minimal first life must be, the higher the improbability of naturalistic formation, yes?

 It seems that at least one of us is confused. Both of your responses appear to be non-sequiturs. Perhaps you could explain what you think the press release shows, and the line of argument by which is supportive of your position.

That was unclear on my part. Based on your use "probability of spontaneous emergence", I had assumed you were referring to the quote from Paul Davies as well: "The more we unravel the biochemical underpinnings of life, the more _improbable its spontaneous emergence_ seems.”
To reiterate as originally stated: "My contention is that progressive discoveries with the complexity and precision of life are making Mt Improbable higher and higher."
I.e., the more we know about life, the more complex we discover it to be. The references provided are evidence of this trend. Of course as science progress, we gain more knowledge. Fine. My point is though, that knowledge is revealing greater and greater complexity and intricacy in biology.
My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.
With OOL, because it refers to prebiotic assembly, i.e. pre-Darwinian evolution, and so a greater burden is placed on random formation and any "chemical evolution".
With Evolution, because there is more precision and more development needed in the time available.

 

>

>
2) On an initial scan of the press release and paper this looks like evidence against life being designed.
>

>