3 ms·

Not sure what part are you arguing although I get the general gist. Still, to make sure I don't misinterpret you, can you expand a bit on which part of those re

Not sure what part are you arguing although I get the general gist. Still, to make sure I don't misinterpret you, can you expand a bit on which part of those requirements are teleological fallacy? The context is for life on earth. All life on earth depends on proteins that are (mostly) soluble in water and almost all protein requires folding to be functional. It is a valid hypothesis to say solubility and foldability are necessary criteria. Then they tested it and found based on these criteria, the current set of amino acids is favored over other sets. Look like good science to me.

yyyk 4y ago
>It is a valid hypothesis to say solubility and foldability are necessary criteria. Necessary criteria for life, yes. Is it neccesary for evolution? The article's argument is that amino acids 'evolved'. Evolution needs a selection mechanism, and the article does not explain why evolution would favour solubility and foldability, so the article* doesn't come close to proving evolution happened much less explaining its details. Perhaps some other unexplained chemical process favoured these acids, or it was an accident. It's like looking at current status of biosphere, and concluding that life optimizes for insectoids because insects have the largest biomass. It's just an argument that assumes the result. * Perhaps the article is bad reporting and the reported study had an actual argument for this.
- galaxytachyon 4y ago
  I see, the actual scientific paper is always a much better source for this stuff than a popsci article. The term "evolution" was used very loosely in the salon article. By your standard it would be more appropriate to call the process "selection". The amino acids never changes or evolved to become anything different, just that some were chosen to become the building blocks of life while others were ignored. The reasons for this selection were likely the two criteria mentioned above and that was backed up by the main study. You will notice I never used "evolution" to describe the process in my posts. I skipped the salon article entirely and only used the link they provided to read the real study so I didn't notice what they said in the salon page. Anyway, it is just some semantic stuff.
  - yyyk 4y ago
    Right, so I read the study instead of the article. Good idea. It's simply that the popsci article claims something that isn't the original study. The article does argue for evolution before life[0], and the study doesn't claim that at all. Either Salon simply misunderstood the study, or spiced it up so that aggregators like HN would pick it up. [0] "So by testing which libraries had the best solubility and structure, the researchers could conclude that proteins were evolving and driving natural selection before even forming living things."

yyyk 4y ago

>It is a valid hypothesis to say solubility and foldability are necessary criteria. Necessary criteria for life, yes. Is it neccesary for evolution? The article's argument is that amino acids 'evolved'. Evolution needs a selection mechanism, and the article does not explain why evolution would favour solubility and foldability, so the article* doesn't come close to proving evolution happened much less explaining its details. Perhaps some other unexplained chemical process favoured these acids, or it was an accident. It's like looking at current status of biosphere, and concluding that life optimizes for insectoids because insects have the largest biomass. It's just an argument that assumes the result. * Perhaps the article is bad reporting and the reported study had an actual argument for this.

galaxytachyon 4y ago
I see, the actual scientific paper is always a much better source for this stuff than a popsci article. The term "evolution" was used very loosely in the salon article. By your standard it would be more appropriate to call the process "selection". The amino acids never changes or evolved to become anything different, just that some were chosen to become the building blocks of life while others were ignored. The reasons for this selection were likely the two criteria mentioned above and that was backed up by the main study. You will notice I never used "evolution" to describe the process in my posts. I skipped the salon article entirely and only used the link they provided to read the real study so I didn't notice what they said in the salon page. Anyway, it is just some semantic stuff.
- yyyk 4y ago
  Right, so I read the study instead of the article. Good idea. It's simply that the popsci article claims something that isn't the original study. The article does argue for evolution before life[0], and the study doesn't claim that at all. Either Salon simply misunderstood the study, or spiced it up so that aggregators like HN would pick it up. [0] "So by testing which libraries had the best solubility and structure, the researchers could conclude that proteins were evolving and driving natural selection before even forming living things."