4 ms·

> pretty convincing conceptual pathway These phrases come up very often when discussing Origin of Life, but it's basically handwaving. It's like saying "we bu

> pretty convincing conceptual pathway These phrases come up very often when discussing Origin of Life, but it's basically handwaving. It's like saying "we built a plane, which gives us a convincing conceptual pathway on how to get to the moon." The differences in complexities are sooo vast, there is really no comparison. I can state it more clearly - We couldn't create a functioning cell from scratch (atoms) if we wanted to. I'm not talking about injecting/replacing DNA in an existing cell as Craig Venter et al do (which is impressive. You'll see many articles talk about "we built the first cell" or even add the words "from scratch" but this is what they did.) I mean build all the functioning pieces - all the molecular machines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_machine) and other components. I don't even think we yet understand all the pieces. You can read some of my questions about abiogenesis at https://biology.stackexchange.com/users/13238/yehosef https://biology.stackexchange.com/users/13238/yehosef - some of the questions and answers may highlight the complexity.

keithwhor 7y ago
We've never created a dinosaur in the lab like they did in Jurassic Park, does that mean no dinosaurs were ever spontaneously born? You're right, biology is a complex field that, mechanistically, we don't understand all of the intricacies of from first (physical) principles. But invoking the simulation hypothesis as a reasonable substitute for what you, personally, believe is the unlikelihood of abiogenesis is functionally equivalent to suggesting Satan planted dinosaur bones underground to misguide our faith. I don't understand how you think, "could this be evidence of a simulation" is any less hand-wavy than, "RNA has catalytic properties that suggest lifeforms may have begun as RNA-based. In fact, there are viruses that self-replicate by hijacking cellular machinery that are entirely RNA. It's not unreasonable to believe that, given long enough timeframes, similar constructs may have spontaneously self-replicated, even if inefficiently." The difference between biology and computation is that the mechanics of large-scale molecular systems are, in most cases, too chaotic with too large of a surface area of potential interactions to explain every step as a direct, in vitro replicable chemical reaction - we must approximate where possible. We have to rely on the properties of large stochastic systems, nearly unfathomable timeframes, and extremely rare events to explain most of the world we see around us today. Yes, every element of the biological world is entirely unlikely. That's kind of the whole reason the field is so beautiful. It only works because there's just so dang much organic material, a constant and consistent heat lamp, and it's all been shaking around violently in a water bath for 3.8 billion years.
- ibraa 7y ago
  > "it's not unreasonable to believe that, given long enough timeframes, similar constructs may have spontaneously self-replicated, even if inefficiently.". It is unreasonable. I'm afraid your long enough timeframes (3.8 billion years) are not even remotely close to long enough if you consider any serious actual statistical measure of how long it would need for something as complex as just a single cell to "spontaneously" exist, the numbers just don't workout. Any hypothesis that just guesses how life started with no substantial evidence whatsoever, is just a desperate try to blind yourself form the elephant in the room, that this insane complexity can't just make itself. No matter how long time passes, a watch can't just come to existence without a watchmaker.
- yehosef 7y ago
  > We've never created a dinosaur in the lab like they did in Jurassic Park, does that mean no dinosaurs were ever spontaneously born? We're talking about one amoebae - try to make just one. Sorry I mentioned the Simulation hypothesis - it's a red herring. It's not important. >We have to rely on the properties of large stochastic systems, nearly unfathomable timeframes, and extremely rare events to explain most of the world we see around us today. This is if you want things to happen by chance in a myriad of different environments (acidic, basic, oxidizing...) then we think that a few billion years is enough. But in a lab settings, you can get things just right and coerce the reactions you want. Even then, controlling everything, we have know idea how we could do it. If you know a molecular or evolutionary biologist who disagrees, I'd love to talk with them. And these time frames are very fathomable - big, but things we can put our head around. We can talk about the physics and dynamics of the universe, the great expansion, etc. It's not something that's beyond us. Making diamonds naturally is a long, multi-million/billion year process. But now we can make them in the lab. With cells, we're talking about a similar time frame but something vastly more complicated. As I said, when I look at the science/math I don't see any current models of abiogenesis (RNA world, protocells, etc.) as remotely viable. IMO, the only reason for a to hold on to this approach is because the alternatives are untenable. I'm open to hearing other approaches - proving or denying abiogenesis does not threaten my worldview.
  - 7y ago

keithwhor 7y ago

We've never created a dinosaur in the lab like they did in Jurassic Park, does that mean no dinosaurs were ever spontaneously born? You're right, biology is a complex field that, mechanistically, we don't understand all of the intricacies of from first (physical) principles. But invoking the simulation hypothesis as a reasonable substitute for what you, personally, believe is the unlikelihood of abiogenesis is functionally equivalent to suggesting Satan planted dinosaur bones underground to misguide our faith. I don't understand how you think, "could this be evidence of a simulation" is any less hand-wavy than, "RNA has catalytic properties that suggest lifeforms may have begun as RNA-based. In fact, there are viruses that self-replicate by hijacking cellular machinery that are entirely RNA. It's not unreasonable to believe that, given long enough timeframes, similar constructs may have spontaneously self-replicated, even if inefficiently." The difference between biology and computation is that the mechanics of large-scale molecular systems are, in most cases, too chaotic with too large of a surface area of potential interactions to explain every step as a direct, in vitro replicable chemical reaction - we must approximate where possible. We have to rely on the properties of large stochastic systems, nearly unfathomable timeframes, and extremely rare events to explain most of the world we see around us today. Yes, every element of the biological world is entirely unlikely. That's kind of the whole reason the field is so beautiful. It only works because there's just so dang much organic material, a constant and consistent heat lamp, and it's all been shaking around violently in a water bath for 3.8 billion years.

ibraa 7y ago
> "it's not unreasonable to believe that, given long enough timeframes, similar constructs may have spontaneously self-replicated, even if inefficiently.". It is unreasonable. I'm afraid your long enough timeframes (3.8 billion years) are not even remotely close to long enough if you consider any serious actual statistical measure of how long it would need for something as complex as just a single cell to "spontaneously" exist, the numbers just don't workout. Any hypothesis that just guesses how life started with no substantial evidence whatsoever, is just a desperate try to blind yourself form the elephant in the room, that this insane complexity can't just make itself. No matter how long time passes, a watch can't just come to existence without a watchmaker.
yehosef 7y ago
> We've never created a dinosaur in the lab like they did in Jurassic Park, does that mean no dinosaurs were ever spontaneously born? We're talking about one amoebae - try to make just one. Sorry I mentioned the Simulation hypothesis - it's a red herring. It's not important. >We have to rely on the properties of large stochastic systems, nearly unfathomable timeframes, and extremely rare events to explain most of the world we see around us today. This is if you want things to happen by chance in a myriad of different environments (acidic, basic, oxidizing...) then we think that a few billion years is enough. But in a lab settings, you can get things just right and coerce the reactions you want. Even then, controlling everything, we have know idea how we could do it. If you know a molecular or evolutionary biologist who disagrees, I'd love to talk with them. And these time frames are very fathomable - big, but things we can put our head around. We can talk about the physics and dynamics of the universe, the great expansion, etc. It's not something that's beyond us. Making diamonds naturally is a long, multi-million/billion year process. But now we can make them in the lab. With cells, we're talking about a similar time frame but something vastly more complicated. As I said, when I look at the science/math I don't see any current models of abiogenesis (RNA world, protocells, etc.) as remotely viable. IMO, the only reason for a to hold on to this approach is because the alternatives are untenable. I'm open to hearing other approaches - proving or denying abiogenesis does not threaten my worldview.
- 7y ago