Here is one author's response to this objection, which is frequently raised on TO. I've previously claimed that the scientific evidence, especially for OOL, points instead to a "God of the growing gulf".

OBJECTION: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we have to invoke God to fill the gaps.

RESPONSE: The entirety of this book seeks to provide a proper scope to the “gap.” The Stairway to Life clarifies that the gap is not simply a missing puzzle piece or a set of unclear details. The gap is, in fact, the entirety of the origin of life. And the gap is growing over time as we learn more about the complexity of cells and as efforts to produce components of life via realistic prebiotic approaches fail. As we have mentioned, additional steps will be added to the Stairway to Life over time. These steps will come from previously unexplored processes that are required for life. For example, we mentioned in Chapter 17 that the current best approximation of a minimal cell that can reproduce autonomously includes 493 genes [201]. This same report specifies that 91 of the 493 genes perform unknown functions. Therefore, about 20% of the minimal genome codes for functions that we have not yet explored. Further, the genome is not the only information contained in life. We are just beginning to explore other forms of information found in living organisms, such as the sugar code that encapsulates cells [226]. Future exploration in these areas will result in new steps in the Stairway to Life and an ever-increasing “gap.” The emperor is not simply missing a lapel pin; the emperor has no clothes. Our conclusion that creative intelligence was essential to start life is based on what we do know, not on what we don’t know. The arguments in this book do not take the following form: “No one knows how life began; therefore, God did it.” Rather, the inference to the need for intelligence in the origin of life follows directly from what we do know about the requirements for life and what we do know about chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, and biology. Turning this objection around, choosing to maintain a belief in abiogenesis despite the absence of a reasonable approach to the Stairway to Life is a “materialism-of-the-gaps” approach—i.e., “we don’t know how life began, but we know that only natural processes were involved.”

Tan, Change; Stadler, Rob. The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check (pp. 187-189). Evorevo Books. Kindle Edition.

On Saturday, 2 December 2023 at 06:26:56 UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
> Here is one author's response to this objection, which is frequently raised on TO. I've previously claimed that the scientific evidence, especially for OOL, points instead to a "God of the growing gulf".
>
> OBJECTION: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
>
> RESPONSE: The entirety of this book seeks to provide a proper scope to the “gap.” The Stairway to Life clarifies that the gap is not simply a missing puzzle piece or a set of unclear details. The gap is, in fact, the entirety of the origin of life. And the gap is growing over time as we learn more about the complexity of cells and as efforts to produce components of life via realistic prebiotic approaches fail. As we have mentioned, additional steps will be added to the Stairway to Life over time. These steps will come from previously unexplored processes that are required for life. For example, we mentioned in Chapter 17 that the current best approximation of a minimal cell that can reproduce autonomously includes 493 genes [201]. This same report specifies that 91 of the 493 genes perform unknown functions. Therefore, about 20% of the minimal genome codes for functions that we have not yet explored. Further, the genome is not the only information contained in life. We are just beginning to explore other forms of information found in living organisms, such as the sugar code that encapsulates cells [226]. Future exploration in these areas will result in new steps in the Stairway to Life and an ever-increasing “gap.” The emperor is not simply missing a lapel pin; the emperor has no clothes. Our conclusion that creative intelligence was essential to start life is based on what we do know, not on what we don’t know. The arguments in this book do not take the following form: “No one knows how life began; therefore, God did it.” Rather, the inference to the need for intelligence in the origin of life follows directly from what we do know about the requirements for life and what we do know about chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, and biology. Turning this objection around, choosing to maintain a belief in abiogenesis despite the absence of a reasonable approach to the Stairway to Life is a “materialism-of-the-gaps” approach—i.e., “we don’t know how life began, but we know that only natural processes were involved.”
>
> Tan, Change; Stadler, Rob. The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check (pp. 187-189). Evorevo Books. Kindle Edition.
>
Gaps again ... zero alternative stories in that writing to be found.
His gaps are in clearly incorrect knowledge. How can be 493 genes theoretical
minimum? 2016, Craig Venter reported creation of Syn 3.0 that actually lives and
replicates and has 473 genes. Theoretical minimum is very likely with lot less.

On 12/2/2023 8:57 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Saturday, 2 December 2023 at 06:26:56 UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
>> Here is one author's response to this objection, which is frequently raised on TO. I've previously claimed that the scientific evidence, especially for OOL, points instead to a "God of the growing gulf".
>>
>> OBJECTION: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
>>
>> RESPONSE: The entirety of this book seeks to provide a proper scope to the “gap.” The Stairway to Life clarifies that the gap is not simply a missing puzzle piece or a set of unclear details. The gap is, in fact, the entirety of the origin of life. And the gap is growing over time as we learn more about the complexity of cells and as efforts to produce components of life via realistic prebiotic approaches fail. As we have mentioned, additional steps will be added to the Stairway to Life over time. These steps will come from previously unexplored processes that are required for life. For example, we mentioned in Chapter 17 that the current best approximation of a minimal cell that can reproduce autonomously includes 493 genes [201]. This same report specifies that 91 of the 493 genes perform unknown functions. Therefore, about 20% of the minimal genome codes for functions that we have not yet explored. Further, the genome is not the only information contained in life. We are just beginning to explore other forms of information found in living organisms, such as the sugar code that encapsulates cells [226]. Future exploration in these areas will result in new steps in the Stairway to Life and an ever-increasing “gap.” The emperor is not simply missing a lapel pin; the emperor has no clothes. Our conclusion that creative intelligence was essential to start life is based on what we do know, not on what we don’t know. The arguments in this book do not take the following form: “No one knows how life began; therefore, God did it.” Rather, the inference to the need for intelligence in the origin of life follows directly from what we do know about the requirements for life and what we do know about chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, and biology. Turning this objection around, choosing to maintain a belief in abiogenesis despite the absence of a reasonable approach to the Stairway to Life is a “materialism-of-the-gaps” approach—i.e., “we don’t know how life began, but we know that only natural processes were involved.”
>>
>> Tan, Change; Stadler, Rob. The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check (pp. 187-189). Evorevo Books. Kindle Edition.
>>
> Gaps again ... zero alternative stories in that writing to be found.
> His gaps are in clearly incorrect knowledge. How can be 493 genes theoretical
> minimum? 2016, Craig Venter reported creation of Syn 3.0 that actually lives and
> replicates and has 473 genes. Theoretical minimum is very likely with lot less.
>
>
I agree that the minimum can't be known at this time. You just have to
realize that there had to be self replicating "life forms" before the
current genetic code evolved. What were their minimal requirements?
Would these early self replicators have anything that we would call a
gene? At some point RNA evolved, and you started to have RNA based
"genes". We would need to figure out the minimum for those genes. DNA
may have evolved to efficiently replicate the RNA "genes". The genetic
code may have evolved after this. Venter's minimal cell had a genetic code.
Ron Okimoto

On 12/1/23 8:24 PM, MarkE wrote:
> Here is one author's response to this objection, which is frequently raised on TO. I've previously claimed that the scientific evidence, especially for OOL, points instead to a "God of the growing gulf".
>
> OBJECTION: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
>
> RESPONSE: The entirety of this book seeks to provide a proper scope to the “gap.” The Stairway to Life clarifies that the gap is not simply a missing puzzle piece or a set of unclear details. The gap is, in fact, the entirety of the origin of life. And the gap is growing over time as we learn more about the complexity of cells and as efforts to produce components of life via realistic prebiotic approaches fail. As we have mentioned, additional steps will be added to the Stairway to Life over time. These steps will come from previously unexplored processes that are required for life. For example, we mentioned in Chapter 17 that the current best approximation of a minimal cell that can reproduce autonomously includes 493 genes [201]. This same report specifies that 91 of the 493 genes perform unknown functions. Therefore, about 20% of the minimal genome codes for functions that we have not yet explored. Further, the genome is not the only information contained in life. We are just beginning to explore other forms of information found in living organisms, such as the sugar code that encapsulates cells [226]. Future exploration in these areas will result in new steps in the Stairway to Life and an ever-increasing “gap.” The emperor is not simply missing a lapel pin; the emperor has no clothes. Our conclusion that creative intelligence was essential to start life is based on what we do know, not on what we don’t know. The arguments in this book do not take the following form: “No one knows how life began; therefore, God did it.” Rather, the inference to the need for intelligence in the origin of life follows directly from what we do know about the requirements for life and what we do know about chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, and biology. Turning this objection around, choosing to maintain a belief in abiogenesis despite the absence of a reasonable approach to the Stairway to Life is a “materialism-of-the-gaps” approach—i.e., “we don’t know how life began, but we know that only natural processes were involved.”
>
> Tan, Change; Stadler, Rob. The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check (pp. 187-189). Evorevo Books. Kindle Edition.
>
We could argue about the size of the gap, but that doesn't confront the
objection in any way. The proper conclusion from "we don't know how this
happened" is "we don't know how this happened", not "God did it".
Nothing in the "response" is relevant to that.

On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 8:26:56 PM UTC-8, MarkE wrote:
> Here is one author's response to this objection, which is frequently raised on TO. I've previously claimed that the scientific evidence, especially for OOL, points instead to a "God of the growing gulf".
>
> OBJECTION: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
>
> RESPONSE: The entirety of this book seeks to provide a proper scope to the “gap.” The Stairway to Life clarifies that the gap is not simply a missing puzzle piece or a set of unclear details. The gap is, in fact, the entirety of the origin of life. And the gap is growing over time as we learn more about the complexity of cells and as efforts to produce components of life via realistic prebiotic approaches fail. As we have mentioned, additional steps will be added to the Stairway to Life over time. These steps will come from previously unexplored processes that are required for life. For example, we mentioned in Chapter 17 that the current best approximation of a minimal cell that can reproduce autonomously includes 493 genes [201]. This same report specifies that 91 of the 493 genes perform unknown functions. Therefore, about 20% of the minimal genome codes for functions that we have not yet explored. Further, the genome is not the only information contained in life. We are just beginning to explore other forms of information found in living organisms, such as the sugar code that encapsulates cells [226]. Future exploration in these areas will result in new steps in the Stairway to Life and an ever-increasing “gap.” The emperor is not simply missing a lapel pin; the emperor has no clothes. Our conclusion that creative intelligence was essential to start life is based on what we do know, not on what we don’t know. The arguments in this book do not take the following form: “No one knows how life began; therefore, God did it.” Rather, the inference to the need for intelligence in the origin of life follows directly from what we do know about the requirements for life and what we do know about chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, and biology. Turning this objection around, choosing to maintain a belief in abiogenesis despite the absence of a reasonable approach to the Stairway to Life is a “materialism-of-the-gaps” approach—i.e., “we don’t know how life began, but we know that only natural processes were involved.”
>
> Tan, Change; Stadler, Rob. The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check (pp. 187-189). Evorevo Books. Kindle Edition.
Not to challenge or belittle your religious views to any extent, why not consider "gaps" in
the fossil record pose the challenge of trying to find out HOW God did it.
He does good work, He left hints. Check it out.

On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 2:01:57 AM UTC+11, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Saturday, 2 December 2023 at 06:26:56 UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
> > Here is one author's response to this objection, which is frequently raised on TO. I've previously claimed that the scientific evidence, especially for OOL, points instead to a "God of the growing gulf".
> >
> > OBJECTION: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
> >
> > RESPONSE: The entirety of this book seeks to provide a proper scope to the “gap.” The Stairway to Life clarifies that the gap is not simply a missing puzzle piece or a set of unclear details. The gap is, in fact, the entirety of the origin of life. And the gap is growing over time as we learn more about the complexity of cells and as efforts to produce components of life via realistic prebiotic approaches fail. As we have mentioned, additional steps will be added to the Stairway to Life over time. These steps will come from previously unexplored processes that are required for life. For example, we mentioned in Chapter 17 that the current best approximation of a minimal cell that can reproduce autonomously includes 493 genes [201]. This same report specifies that 91 of the 493 genes perform unknown functions. Therefore, about 20% of the minimal genome codes for functions that we have not yet explored. Further, the genome is not the only information contained in life. We are just beginning to explore other forms of information found in living organisms, such as the sugar code that encapsulates cells [226]. Future exploration in these areas will result in new steps in the Stairway to Life and an ever-increasing “gap.” The emperor is not simply missing a lapel pin; the emperor has no clothes. Our conclusion that creative intelligence was essential to start life is based on what we do know, not on what we don’t know. The arguments in this book do not take the following form: “No one knows how life began; therefore, God did it.” Rather, the inference to the need for intelligence in the origin of life follows directly from what we do know about the requirements for life and what we do know about chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, and biology. Turning this objection around, choosing to maintain a belief in abiogenesis despite the absence of a reasonable approach to the Stairway to Life is a “materialism-of-the-gaps” approach—i.e., “we don’t know how life began, but we know that only natural processes were involved.”
> >
> > Tan, Change; Stadler, Rob. The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check (pp. 187-189). Evorevo Books. Kindle Edition.
> >
> Gaps again ... zero alternative stories in that writing to be found.
> His gaps are in clearly incorrect knowledge. How can be 493 genes theoretical
> minimum? 2016, Craig Venter reported creation of Syn 3.0 that actually lives and
> replicates and has 473 genes. Theoretical minimum is very likely with lot less.

Step 1: Demonstrate from science 'an ever-increasing “gap.”'
Step 2: Consider the God hypothesis.

On Sunday, 3 December 2023 at 15:01:57 UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
> On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 2:01:57 AM UTC+11, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Saturday, 2 December 2023 at 06:26:56 UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
> > > Here is one author's response to this objection, which is frequently raised on TO. I've previously claimed that the scientific evidence, especially for OOL, points instead to a "God of the growing gulf".
> > >
> > > OBJECTION: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
> > >
> > > RESPONSE: The entirety of this book seeks to provide a proper scope to the “gap.” The Stairway to Life clarifies that the gap is not simply a missing puzzle piece or a set of unclear details. The gap is, in fact, the entirety of the origin of life. And the gap is growing over time as we learn more about the complexity of cells and as efforts to produce components of life via realistic prebiotic approaches fail. As we have mentioned, additional steps will be added to the Stairway to Life over time. These steps will come from previously unexplored processes that are required for life. For example, we mentioned in Chapter 17 that the current best approximation of a minimal cell that can reproduce autonomously includes 493 genes [201]. This same report specifies that 91 of the 493 genes perform unknown functions. Therefore, about 20% of the minimal genome codes for functions that we have not yet explored. Further, the genome is not the only information contained in life. We are just beginning to explore other forms of information found in living organisms, such as the sugar code that encapsulates cells [226]. Future exploration in these areas will result in new steps in the Stairway to Life and an ever-increasing “gap.” The emperor is not simply missing a lapel pin; the emperor has no clothes. Our conclusion that creative intelligence was essential to start life is based on what we do know, not on what we don’t know. The arguments in this book do not take the following form: “No one knows how life began; therefore, God did it.” Rather, the inference to the need for intelligence in the origin of life follows directly from what we do know about the requirements for life and what we do know about chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, and biology. Turning this objection around, choosing to maintain a belief in abiogenesis despite the absence of a reasonable approach to the Stairway to Life is a “materialism-of-the-gaps” approach—i.e., “we don’t know how life began, but we know that only natural processes were involved.”
> > >
> > > Tan, Change; Stadler, Rob. The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check (pp. 187-189). Evorevo Books. Kindle Edition.
> > >
> > Gaps again ... zero alternative stories in that writing to be found.
> > His gaps are in clearly incorrect knowledge. How can be 493 genes theoretical
> > minimum? 2016, Craig Venter reported creation of Syn 3.0 that actually lives and
> > replicates and has 473 genes. Theoretical minimum is very likely with lot less.
>
> Step 1: Demonstrate from science 'an ever-increasing “gap.”'
> Step 2: Consider the God hypothesis.
>
Increase of counter-evidence did happen with "science" that assumed the
conclusion. With flat earth geocentrism, with scientific creationism and
flood geology.

With gaps in knowledge it does not happen. Counter-evidence to lack of
knowledge? The god of gaps can be only discredited by gaps getting
smaller. As the gaps are disconnected and getting smaller and smaller
the god in those gets more and more incoherent. So it is backwards and
unfortunate god of imagination in those. If there actually is creator God
then He acted like science says, did not hide in our ignorance.

On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 8:01:57 AM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
> On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 2:01:57 AM UTC+11, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Saturday, 2 December 2023 at 06:26:56 UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
> > > Here is one author's response to this objection, which is frequently raised on TO. I've previously claimed that the scientific evidence, especially for OOL, points instead to a "God of the growing gulf".
> > >
> > > OBJECTION: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
> > >
> > > RESPONSE: The entirety of this book seeks to provide a proper scope to the “gap.” The Stairway to Life clarifies that the gap is not simply a missing puzzle piece or a set of unclear details. The gap is, in fact, the entirety of the origin of life. And the gap is growing over time as we learn more about the complexity of cells and as efforts to produce components of life via realistic prebiotic approaches fail. As we have mentioned, additional steps will be added to the Stairway to Life over time. These steps will come from previously unexplored processes that are required for life. For example, we mentioned in Chapter 17 that the current best approximation of a minimal cell that can reproduce autonomously includes 493 genes [201]. This same report specifies that 91 of the 493 genes perform unknown functions. Therefore, about 20% of the minimal genome codes for functions that we have not yet explored. Further, the genome is not the only information contained in life. We are just beginning to explore other forms of information found in living organisms, such as the sugar code that encapsulates cells [226]. Future exploration in these areas will result in new steps in the Stairway to Life and an ever-increasing “gap.” The emperor is not simply missing a lapel pin; the emperor has no clothes. Our conclusion that creative intelligence was essential to start life is based on what we do know, not on what we don’t know. The arguments in this book do not take the following form: “No one knows how life began; therefore, God did it.” Rather, the inference to the need for intelligence in the origin of life follows directly from what we do know about the requirements for life and what we do know about chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, and biology. Turning this objection around, choosing to maintain a belief in abiogenesis despite the absence of a reasonable approach to the Stairway to Life is a “materialism-of-the-gaps” approach—i.e., “we don’t know how life began, but we know that only natural processes were involved.”
> > >
> > > Tan, Change; Stadler, Rob. The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check (pp. 187-189). Evorevo Books. Kindle Edition.
> > >
> > Gaps again ... zero alternative stories in that writing to be found.
> > His gaps are in clearly incorrect knowledge. How can be 493 genes theoretical
> > minimum? 2016, Craig Venter reported creation of Syn 3.0 that actually lives and
> > replicates and has 473 genes. Theoretical minimum is very likely with lot less.
> Step 1: Demonstrate from science 'an ever-increasing “gap.”'
> Step 2: Consider the God hypothesis.

Step 1 is not demonstrable. Step 2 does not depend on Step 1 anyway.

On 12/1/23 8:24 PM, MarkE wrote:
> Here is one author's response to this objection, which is frequently raised on TO. I've previously claimed that the scientific evidence, especially for OOL, points instead to a "God of the growing gulf".
>
> OBJECTION: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
>
> RESPONSE: The entirety of this book seeks to provide a proper scope to the “gap.” The Stairway to Life clarifies that the gap is not simply a missing puzzle piece or a set of unclear details. The gap is, in fact, the entirety of the origin of life. And the gap is growing over time as we learn more about the complexity of cells and as efforts to produce components of life via realistic prebiotic approaches fail. As we have mentioned, additional steps will be added to the Stairway to Life over time. These steps will come from previously unexplored processes that are required for life. For example, we mentioned in Chapter 17 that the current best approximation of a minimal cell that can reproduce autonomously includes 493 genes [201]. This same report specifies that 91 of the 493 genes perform unknown functions. Therefore, about 20% of the minimal genome codes for functions that we have not yet explored. Further, the genome is not the only information contained in life. We are just beginning to explore other forms of information found in living organisms, such as the sugar code that encapsulates cells [226]. Future exploration in these areas will result in new steps in the Stairway to Life and an ever-increasing “gap.” The emperor is not simply missing a lapel pin; the emperor has no clothes. Our conclusion that creative intelligence was essential to start life is based on what we do know, not on what we don’t know. The arguments in this book do not take the following form: “No one knows how life began; therefore, God did it.” Rather, the inference to the need for intelligence in the origin of life follows directly from what we do know about the requirements for life and what we do know about chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, and biology. Turning this objection around, choosing to maintain a belief in abiogenesis despite the absence of a reasonable approach to the Stairway to Life is a “materialism-of-the-gaps” approach—i.e., “we don’t know how life began, but we know that only natural processes were involved.”
>
> Tan, Change; Stadler, Rob. The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check (pp. 187-189). Evorevo Books. Kindle Edition.
Three points. First, expanding (or multiplying) gaps are to be expected
from scientific progress. For example, there are large gaps in our
understanding of most aspects of bacteria, but a couple hundred years
ago, we didn't even know bacteria existed, so all those gaps in our
knowledge were invisible. As knowledge expands, we see more gaps.
Second, the inference that the author speaks of -- from gaps to "need
for intelligence" -- is horribly, fatally wrong. A gap means we don't
know. The only possible inference from "we don't know" is that we don't
know. Anything else is fantasy at best. Tan and Stadler are asserting
that because scientists have not found an answer, they themselves get to
make up their favorite story and assert it as fact.
Third, you said in another post, "Consider the God hypothesis." There
is no God hypothesis. A hypothesis must allow falsifiable predictions.
Since "God" can explain anything, it can explain nothing. God is not a
hypothesis; in science, it is a statement that you want to stop thinking.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On 12/3/2023 7:00 AM, MarkE wrote:
> On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 2:01:57 AM UTC+11, Öö Tiib wrote:
>> On Saturday, 2 December 2023 at 06:26:56 UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
>>> Here is one author's response to this objection, which is frequently raised on TO. I've previously claimed that the scientific evidence, especially for OOL, points instead to a "God of the growing gulf".
>>>
>>> OBJECTION: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
>>>
>>> RESPONSE: The entirety of this book seeks to provide a proper scope to the “gap.” The Stairway to Life clarifies that the gap is not simply a missing puzzle piece or a set of unclear details. The gap is, in fact, the entirety of the origin of life. And the gap is growing over time as we learn more about the complexity of cells and as efforts to produce components of life via realistic prebiotic approaches fail. As we have mentioned, additional steps will be added to the Stairway to Life over time. These steps will come from previously unexplored processes that are required for life. For example, we mentioned in Chapter 17 that the current best approximation of a minimal cell that can reproduce autonomously includes 493 genes [201]. This same report specifies that 91 of the 493 genes perform unknown functions. Therefore, about 20% of the minimal genome codes for functions that we have not yet explored. Further, the genome is not the only information contained in life. We are just beginning to explore other forms of information found in living organisms, such as the sugar code that encapsulates cells [226]. Future exploration in these areas will result in new steps in the Stairway to Life and an ever-increasing “gap.” The emperor is not simply missing a lapel pin; the emperor has no clothes. Our conclusion that creative intelligence was essential to start life is based on what we do know, not on what we don’t know. The arguments in this book do not take the following form: “No one knows how life began; therefore, God did it.” Rather, the inference to the need for intelligence in the origin of life follows directly from what we do know about the requirements for life and what we do know about chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, and biology. Turning this objection around, choosing to maintain a belief in abiogenesis despite the absence of a reasonable approach to the Stairway to Life is a “materialism-of-the-gaps” approach—i.e., “we don’t know how life began, but we know that only natural processes were involved.”
>>>
>>> Tan, Change; Stadler, Rob. The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check (pp. 187-189). Evorevo Books. Kindle Edition.
>>>
>> Gaps again ... zero alternative stories in that writing to be found.
>> His gaps are in clearly incorrect knowledge. How can be 493 genes theoretical
>> minimum? 2016, Craig Venter reported creation of Syn 3.0 that actually lives and
>> replicates and has 473 genes. Theoretical minimum is very likely with lot less.
>
> Step 1: Demonstrate from science 'an ever-increasing “gap.”'
> Step 2: Consider the God hypothesis.
>
Actually, the real Step 1 is to consider the God hypothesis and then
make something up as to why it might be credible. That is how it
currently is. If you deny that, you have issues with dealing with reality.
You obviously do not need your Step 1 to go to your Step 2. Step 1 has
never been required for consideration of the God hypothesis.
Ron Okimoto

MarkE wrote:
> Here is one author's response to this objection, which is frequently raised on TO. I've previously claimed that the scientific evidence, especially for OOL, points instead to a "God of the growing gulf".
>
> OBJECTION: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
>
The truth is: This is where we find evolution - in the gaps. The 00L and
the Cambrian explosion is _not_ where we find a "god", but rather this
is where we find evolution, which has been trying desperately for 150+
years to find non-existing evidence that closes these gaps.... It's
_AFTER_ these gaps, is where we find the results of "god's " work!.
>
> RESPONSE: The entirety of this book seeks to provide a proper scope to the “gap.” The Stairway to Life clarifies that the gap is not simply a missing puzzle piece or a set of unclear details. The gap is, in fact, the entirety of the origin of life. And the gap is growing over time as we learn more about the complexity of cells and as efforts to produce components of life via realistic prebiotic approaches fail. As we have mentioned, additional steps will be added to the Stairway to Life over time. These steps will come from previously unexplored processes that are required for life. For example, we mentioned in Chapter 17 that the current best approximation of a minimal cell that can reproduce autonomously includes 493 genes [201]. This same report specifies that 91 of the 493 genes perform unknown functions. Therefore, about 20% of the minimal genome codes for functions that we have not yet explored. Further, the genome is not the only information contained in life. We are just beginning to explore other forms of information found in living organisms, such as the sugar code that encapsulates cells [226]. Future exploration in these areas will result in new steps in the Stairway to Life and an ever-increasing “gap.” The emperor is not simply missing a lapel pin; the emperor has no clothes. Our conclusion that creative intelligence was essential to start life is based on what we do know, not on what we don’t know. The arguments in this book do not take the following form: “No one knows how life began; therefore, God did it.” Rather, the inference to the need for intelligence in the origin of life follows directly from what we do know about the requirements for life and what we do know about chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, and biology. Turning this objection around, choosing to maintain a belief in abiogenesis despite the absence of a reasonable approach to the Stairway to Life is a “materialism-of-the-gaps” approach—i.e., “we don’t know how life began, but we know that only natural processes were involved.”
>
> Tan, Change; Stadler, Rob. The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check (pp. 187-189). Evorevo Books. Kindle Edition.
>

On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 09:16:59 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
> MarkE wrote:
> > Here is one author's response to this objection, which is frequently raised on TO. I've previously claimed that the scientific evidence, especially for OOL, points instead to a "God of the growing gulf".
> >
> > OBJECTION: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
> >
> The truth is: This is where we find evolution - in the gaps. The 00L and
> the Cambrian explosion is _not_ where we find a "god", but rather this
> is where we find evolution, which has been trying desperately for 150+
> years to find non-existing evidence that closes these gaps.... It's
> _AFTER_ these gaps, is where we find the results of "god's " work!.
>
Evolution isn't concerned with OOL. Perhaps OOL happened
spontaneously here or elsewhere and migrated in or was altered by
whomever intelligent? It is irrelevant. Fact is that life evolved here for
billions of years agonisingly slowly. Exactly as expected from so
primitive process. At some point it clearly had common to all survived
life ancestor as it is based on very narrow choice from apparently
available space of possible biochemistries and very narrow choice
of space of possible structural arrangements of that biochemistry.

Claiming that evolution is wrong because it does not explain origins
of life is like claiming that it is wrong because it does not explain
origins of speed of light and absolute zero temperature.

Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 09:16:59 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
>> MarkE wrote:
>>> Here is one author's response to this objection, which is frequently raised on TO. I've previously claimed that the scientific evidence, especially for OOL, points instead to a "God of the growing gulf".
>>>
>>> OBJECTION: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
>>>
>> The truth is: This is where we find evolution - in the gaps. The 00L and
>> the Cambrian explosion is _not_ where we find a "god", but rather this
>> is where we find evolution, which has been trying desperately for 150+
>> years to find non-existing evidence that closes these gaps.... It's
>> _AFTER_ these gaps, is where we find the results of "god's " work!.
>>
> Evolution isn't concerned with OOL. Perhaps OOL happened
> spontaneously here or elsewhere and migrated in or was altered by
> whomever intelligent? It is irrelevant.
>
I realize that's the claim. However, there has been research and
experimenting with chemicals for a century in the hopes of discovering
how life originated via some random, mindless, unguided natural
processes. I'll bet the scientist engaged in this enterprise are
dedicated evolutionist, themselves and you cannot justifiably argue the
contrary.
So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!

Fact is that life evolved here for
> billions of years agonisingly slowly. Exactly as expected from so
> primitive process. At some point it clearly had common to all survived
> life ancestor as it is based on very narrow choice from apparently
> available space of possible biochemistries and very narrow choice
> of space of possible structural arrangements of that biochemistry.
>
> Claiming that evolution is wrong because it does not explain origins
> of life is like claiming that it is wrong because it does not explain
> origins of speed of light and absolute zero temperature.
>

On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:
> So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
> not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
> OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
> could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!

Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated
through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural
abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct
panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other
possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
natural selection and other processes.

--
alias Ernest Major

On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 1:56:59 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 09:16:59 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
> >> MarkE wrote:
> >>> Here is one author's response to this objection, which is frequently raised on TO. I've previously claimed that the scientific evidence, especially for OOL, points instead to a "God of the growing gulf".
> >>>
> >>> OBJECTION: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
> >>>
> >> The truth is: This is where we find evolution - in the gaps. The 00L and
> >> the Cambrian explosion is _not_ where we find a "god", but rather this
> >> is where we find evolution, which has been trying desperately for 150+
> >> years to find non-existing evidence that closes these gaps.... It's
> >> _AFTER_ these gaps, is where we find the results of "god's " work!.
> >>
> > Evolution isn't concerned with OOL. Perhaps OOL happened
> > spontaneously here or elsewhere and migrated in or was altered by
> > whomever intelligent? It is irrelevant.
> >
> I realize that's the claim. However, there has been research and
> experimenting with chemicals for a century in the hopes of discovering
> how life originated via some random, mindless, unguided natural
> processes. I'll bet the scientist engaged in this enterprise are
> dedicated evolutionist, themselves and you cannot justifiably argue the
> contrary.
> So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
> not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
> OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
> could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
> Fact is that life evolved here for

One more time, __Dedicated_Evolutionist__ isn't a thing.
There's no such club, there's no organization, there aren't meetings held,
there are no membership cards, no weekly services, no sacred scripture
--- not even Origin of Species. Somehow, you claim that you were one of
these non-existent things: a Dedicated Evolutionist.

It is as much aa lie as your Piltdown Man PhDs or your claim that the divers
who retrieved the Antikythera mechanism recognized it as designed when
they first saw it under water. These things are all falsehoods.

Otto: [superior smile] Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it! Now let me correct you
on a couple things, okay? Aristotle was not Belgian! The central message of
Buddhism is not "Every man for himself!" And the London Underground is not
a political movement! Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked 'em up.

On 2023-12-04 18:54:51 +0000, Ron Dean said:

> Öö Tiib wrote:
>> On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 09:16:59 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> MarkE wrote:
>>>> Here is one author's response to this objection, which is frequently
>>>> raised on TO. I've previously claimed that the scientific evidence,
>>>> especially for OOL, points instead to a "God of the growing gulf".
>>>>
>>>> OBJECTION: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just
>>>> because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we
>>>> have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
>>>>
>>> The truth is: This is where we find evolution - in the gaps. The 00L and
>>> the Cambrian explosion is _not_ where we find a "god", but rather this
>>> is where we find evolution, which has been trying desperately for 150+
>>> years to find non-existing evidence that closes these gaps.... It's
>>> _AFTER_ these gaps, is where we find the results of "god's " work!.
>>>
>> Evolution isn't concerned with OOL. Perhaps OOL happened
>> spontaneously here or elsewhere and migrated in or was altered by
>> whomever intelligent? It is irrelevant.
> >
> I realize that's the claim. However, there has been research and
> experimenting with chemicals for a century in the hopes of discovering
> how life originated via some random, mindless, unguided natural
> processes.

Evidence? I realize that you don't normally bother with evidence, but
it still would be nice to know where you got this incredibly
superficial account of origin-of-life resarch.

> I'll bet the scientist engaged in this enterprise are dedicated
> evolutionist, themselves and you cannot justifiably argue the contrary.

Try not to bet on things you know nothing about.

Try also to learn the difference between the origin of life and
evolution. Hint: natural selection is concerned to explain how life
evolved _after_ the origin. It says nothing (or almost nothing) about
what happened before that.

> So, technically it might not be part of evolution,

Not technically, OK, but not anything.

> nevertheless, it's not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist
> laboring in the field of OOL.

How do you think you know that? Evidence? With suitable references.

> Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there could
> be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!

That's a truism with no information content.
>
>
> Fact is that life evolved here for
>> billions of years agonisingly slowly. Exactly as expected from so
>> primitive process. At some point it clearly had common to all survived
>> life ancestor as it is based on very narrow choice from apparently
>> available space of possible biochemistries and very narrow choice
>> of space of possible structural arrangements of that biochemistry.
>>
>> Claiming that evolution is wrong because it does not explain origins
>> of life is like claiming that it is wrong because it does not explain
>> origins of speed of light and absolute zero temperature.

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:

>On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:
>> So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
>> not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
>> OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
>> could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
>
>Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated
>through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural
>abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct
>panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other
>possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
>to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
>lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
>common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
>natural selection and other processes.
>
I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've
even posted it myself.

I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted,
it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by
anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They
seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to
do so.
>
--

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

On 04/12/2023 21:10, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>
>> On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
>>> not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
>>> OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
>>> could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
>>
>> Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated
>> through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural
>> abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct
>> panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other
>> possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
>> to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
>> lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
>> common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
>> natural selection and other processes.
>>
> I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've
> even posted it myself.

I've posted versions of that list a few times; this time I forgot
accidental panspermia.

>
> I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted,
> it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by
> anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They
> seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to
> do so.
>>

--
alias Ernest Major

On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 21:31:25 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:

>On 04/12/2023 21:10, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>>
>>> On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
>>>> not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
>>>> OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
>>>> could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
>>>
>>> Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated
>>> through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural
>>> abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct
>>> panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other
>>> possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
>>> to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
>>> lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
>>> common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
>>> natural selection and other processes.
>>>
>> I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've
>> even posted it myself.
>
>I've posted versions of that list a few times; this time I forgot
>accidental panspermia.
>
Oh, mustn't forget *that*! :-)

Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
>>
>> I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted,
>> it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by
>> anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They
>> seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to
>> do so.
>>>
--

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

On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 21:31:25 +0000, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>
> >On 04/12/2023 21:10, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in
> >> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
> >> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
> >>
> >>> On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:
> >>>> So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
> >>>> not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
> >>>> OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
> >>>> could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
> >>>
> >>> Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated
> >>> through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural
> >>> abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct
> >>> panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other
> >>> possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
> >>> to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
> >>> lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
> >>> common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
> >>> natural selection and other processes.
> >>>
> >> I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've
> >> even posted it myself.
> >
> >I've posted versions of that list a few times; this time I forgot
> >accidental panspermia.
> >
> Oh, mustn't forget *that*! :-)
>
> Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
> in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
> that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
> the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
> happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
> there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
> Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
> >>
> >> I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted,
> >> it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by
> >> anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They
> >> seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to
> >> do so.
> >>>
> --
> 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
It seems to me that a case can be made for using the time required for life to arrive at certain
milestones (first appearance, first photosynthesis, first eukayotes, multi-cellularity, etc) to
represent the difficulty of arriving at that milestone. FIrst appearance of life on earth is somewhere
between 200 - 500 My. All the subsequent advances required significantly more time, measured in Gy.
SInce chemical building blocks are everywhere, and sufficiently earth-like conditions quite
common, bacteria-grade life may be likewise common. Whether evolution proceeds to the
level required to tickle the Fermi paradox is another question.

On 2023-12-04 19:58:51 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:

> On 2023-12-04 18:54:51 +0000, Ron Dean said:
>
>> Öö Tiib wrote:
>>> On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 09:16:59 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> MarkE wrote:
>>>>> Here is one author's response to this objection, which is frequently
>>>>> raised on TO. I've previously claimed that the scientific evidence,
>>>>> especially for OOL, points instead to a "God of the growing gulf".
>>>>>
>>>>> OBJECTION: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just
>>>>> because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we
>>>>> have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
>>>>>
>>>> The truth is: This is where we find evolution - in the gaps. The 00L and
>>>> the Cambrian explosion is _not_ where we find a "god", but rather this
>>>> is where we find evolution, which has been trying desperately for 150+
>>>> years to find non-existing evidence that closes these gaps.... It's
>>>> _AFTER_ these gaps, is where we find the results of "god's " work!.
>>>>
>>> Evolution isn't concerned with OOL. Perhaps OOL happened
>>> spontaneously here or elsewhere and migrated in or was altered by
>>> whomever intelligent? It is irrelevant.
>>>
>> I realize that's the claim. However, there has been research and
>> experimenting with chemicals for a century in the hopes of discovering
>> how life originated via some random, mindless, unguided natural
>> processes.
>
> Evidence? I realize that you don't normally bother with evidence, but
> it still would be nice to know where you got this incredibly
> superficial account of origin-of-life resarch.
>
>> I'll bet the scientist engaged in this enterprise are dedicated
>> evolutionist, themselves and you cannot justifiably argue the contrary.
>
> Try not to bet on things you know nothing about.
>
> Try also to learn the difference between the origin of life and
> evolution. Hint: natural selection is concerned to explain how life
> evolved _after_ the origin. It says nothing (or almost nothing) about
> what happened before that.
>
>> So, technically it might not be part of evolution,
>
> Not technically, OK, but not anything.
>
>> nevertheless, it's not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist
>> laboring in the field of OOL.
>
> How do you think you know that? Evidence? With suitable references.
>
>> Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there could
>> be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
>
> That's a truism with no information content.
>>
>>
>> Fact is that life evolved here for
>>> billions of years agonisingly slowly. Exactly as expected from so
>>> primitive process. At some point it clearly had common to all survived
>>> life ancestor as it is based on very narrow choice from apparently
>>> available space of possible biochemistries and very narrow choice
>>> of space of possible structural arrangements of that biochemistry.
>>>
>>> Claiming that evolution is wrong because it does not explain origins
>>> of life is like claiming that it is wrong because it does not explain
>>> origins of speed of light and absolute zero temperature.

No evidence yet, I see. No evidence either for your claim that Piltdown
Man was ever a centre piece in theory of evolution. Can we take your
silence as an admission of dishonesty?

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

On Mon, 04 Dec 2023 15:41:33 -0700
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:

[Accidental Panspermia]
>
> Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
> in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
> that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
> the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
> happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
> there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
> Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).

On no evidence whatsoever, I favour the explanation that life started on
warm wet Mars, and seeded Earth soon after it had settled down to a more
hospitable place after the Moon was created.

Or maybe it started on Earth beforehand but Earth life got wiped out with
the big collision; though luckily there was a backup store of life on Mars
by then to transfer back when times were better.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 10:57:29 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Dec 2023 15:41:33 -0700
>Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>[Accidental Panspermia]
>>
>> Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
>> in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
>> that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
>> the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
>> happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
>> there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
>> Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
>
>On no evidence whatsoever, I favour the explanation that life started on
>warm wet Mars, and seeded Earth soon after it had settled down to a more
>hospitable place after the Moon was created.
>
>Or maybe it started on Earth beforehand but Earth life got wiped out with
>the big collision; though luckily there was a backup store of life on Mars
>by then to transfer back when times were better.

Since you mention it, it's not clear to me how Mars could have evolved
life significantly before Earth.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 15:44:18 -0800 (PST), erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 2:42:00?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 21:31:25 +0000, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>>
>> >On 04/12/2023 21:10, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in
>> >> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>> >> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>> >>
>> >>> On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:
>> >>>> So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
>> >>>> not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
>> >>>> OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
>> >>>> could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
>> >>>
>> >>> Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated
>> >>> through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural
>> >>> abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct
>> >>> panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other
>> >>> possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
>> >>> to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
>> >>> lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
>> >>> common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
>> >>> natural selection and other processes.
>> >>>
>> >> I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've
>> >> even posted it myself.
>> >
>> >I've posted versions of that list a few times; this time I forgot
>> >accidental panspermia.
>> >
>> Oh, mustn't forget *that*! :-)
>>
>> Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
>> in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
>> that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
>> the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
>> happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
>> there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
>> Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
>> >>
>> >> I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted,
>> >> it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by
>> >> anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They
>> >> seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to
>> >> do so.
>> >>>
>> --
>> 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
>It seems to me that a case can be made for using the time required for life to arrive at certain
>milestones (first appearance, first photosynthesis, first eukayotes, multi-cellularity, etc) to
>represent the difficulty of arriving at that milestone. FIrst appearance of life on earth is somewhere
>between 200 - 500 My. All the subsequent advances required significantly more time, measured in Gy.
>SInce chemical building blocks are everywhere, and sufficiently earth-like conditions quite
>common, bacteria-grade life may be likewise common. Whether evolution proceeds to the
>level required to tickle the Fermi paradox is another question.

Correct. Since you mention it, evolution might be the explanation to
the Fermi paradox, specifically that species which evolve to expand to
other stellar systems would necessarily compete with each other and
prevent the galactic expansion the Fermi paradox presumes.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Tuesday, 5 December 2023 at 12:22:00 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >
> No evidence yet, I see. No evidence either for your claim that Piltdown
> Man was ever a centre piece in theory of evolution. Can we take your
> silence as an admission of dishonesty?
>
But think if he is actually honest apostate of Dedicated Evolutionism Sect?
We haven't heard of it but anything may exist that we haven't heard of.
Then his contacts in there probably treat him warily. Therefore evidence
about malicious OOL ploys is hard to gather.

Evidences about how massive scientific breakthrough was Eoanthropus
Dawsoni may be even harder to gather. Dawson died about 100 years
ago. Everything concerning that is probably either destroyed, sealed in
deep vaults of sect or skewed beyond recognition by its powerful
masterminds.

Lets see what we can find in internet? Google search gives only about
172,000 hits for "piltdown man". Those keep saying that the scam was
so popular because of "Aryan" pride of racist Europeans back then.
They supposedly were not happy about hominid fossils found in Asia
and Africa ... and so the fake was perfect missing link to "Nordic origins".
The actual backbone of evolution is now shown as fake piece of nazi
propaganda! Q.E.D. that the masterminds of sect are tremendously
powerful. So what other evidence you need?