On Friday 5 January 2024 at 03:02:29 UTC+2, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 6:22:29 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 22:12:28 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
> > > broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Ron Dean recently posted....
> > > >
> > > > "I watched this video entitled Debunking the "Fine Tuning Argument" by
> > > > Sean Carroll referenced twice.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR79HDEf9k8
> > > >
> > > > Carroll's argument from the beginning.
>
> > > > His video entitled "Debunking the 'Fine Tuning' Argument", he states
> > > > "You have phenomena; you have parameters of particle physics and
> > > > cosmology."
> Presumably, parameters that hold throughout our ca. 14 gigayear universe.
> Why, then, the bizarre choice of words that come next:
> > > > Then he says "I am by no means, convinced that there is
> > > > a fine tuning problem". And then he continues, "it is certainly true
> > > > that if you changed the parameters of nature, our local conditions that
> > > > we observe around us would change by a lot.
> "local conditions" = the entire observable universe, with only a multiverse
> (or a supernatural realm) to keep them from being all the conditions that we have any reason
> to think of existing or ever having existed or ever will exist in the whole of reality.
> > > > "Sadly, we just don't know
> > > > whether if life could exist if conditions of the universe were different
> > > > see the universe that we see".
> Now Bill Rogers chimes in with:
> > > >But the fine tuning argument is not about
> > > > life, but rather life as we _know_ it.
> Also life as we are able to imagine it. Keep reading.
> > > >
> > > Two problems: 1) "Life as _we_know_it_. There is absolutely no
> > > justification for assuming that there is any life, other than that which
> > > we do know about. And certainly no _reason_ for such an
> > > assumption - other than as an escape!
> > >
> > There is whole multidisciplinary field of science called "synthetic biology"
> > that works on possibility of different life in exactly our universe.
>
> Yes, exactly as it is -- with the constants what they are.
> But look at what happens when one of the constants
> is varied just a bit:
>
> " The cosmos is so vast because there is one crucially
> important huge number N in nature, equal to 1,000,000,
> OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO. This number
> measures the strength of the electrical forces that hold
> atoms together, divided by the force of gravity between
> them. If N had a few less zeros, only a short-lived miniature
> universe could exist: no creatures could grow larger than
> insects, and there would be no time for biological evolution."
>
> --Martin Rees, British Astronomer Royal In _Just_Six_Numbers_, p.2
> https://www.firstscience.com/SITE/ARTICLES/rees.asp
>
OK, but that still does not say why there can't be multiple different
biological systems in that large universe. It does not even attempt
to claim it.

> > Also the religious scriptures are full of angels, demons, titans,
> > fire-breathing dragons, talking serpents, sticks turned into snakes and
> > what not. So I do not see from where you get that "problem" and by
> > whose position it even exists.
>
> From the position of the atheist, agnostic, or skeptic who seriously doubts
> that there are such creatures as "the scriptures" talk about.
> IOW, people like yourself, no?
>
I can't tell about others. I know few things. One is that we have done
lot of discoveries about biology during last 200 years. There are no
reason to think that it suddenly stops. Other is that people like to tell
fantasy stories. So whatever is told without evidence is worth to be
skeptical about.
> > > 2) There is at leas 10 different constants that had to be perfectly
> > > balanced and "fine tuned" for the universe itself to come about.
> > > Consequently, life, is solely conditioned upon our universe existing.
> > >
> > "Universe" in Conway's Game of Life is 2-dimensional grid with 4 trivial
> > rules of progress. Universal Turing Machine is possible to manufacture
> > in it.
> These are things of pure mathematics, rather simple ones at that,
> with no existence of the sort that physics talks about, and certainly
> no biological life, let alone consciousness.
>
It is same what I said. Biology as we know it can not exist in Conway's
Game of Life. Yet complex machinery can.

> >So by what logic that problem exists is also hard to imagine.
> You aren't thinking like a physical or biological scientist here.
>
Physical and biological sciences are studying our reality. I understand
that we talk outside of scope of those sciences.

> > Yes, our universe is needed for our kind of life to exists. But what is surprizing
> > about it?
> The low tolerances for a universe where biological life is able to exist.
> The number N constrains the universe radically in one direction; other
> of the six constants named by Rees constrain it in both directions.
> See the webpage I linked for them, and for additional commentary about them.
>
What are the Rees constants in Conway's Game of Life? Why we assume
that whatever other possible universe has concept where those constants
make sense whatsoever? We know nothing about it but try to conclude
something from that ignorance.

> >
> > If you believe that this huge universe was specially made for to support
> > one kind of life on one tiny rock orbiting mediocre star (that will turn to
> > red giant over next billion of years) then it is fine.
>
> I have no such belief, and I think you are attacking a straw man here.
>
I am attacking nothing. I am concluding that odd position from problems 1)
and 2) that do not look like problems.

> > But you must be
> > capable to see that such position is rather hard to buy as truth or
> > even anyhow close to truth.
>
> YOU are capable to "see" such a foolish thing, because you have not thought seriously
> about the facts in the webpage I linked, much less in the whole book,
> which goes into these problems with great depth. Yet your lack of knowledge is probably
> easy to remedy: the book is short enough to read in one day, yet is quite
> readable by someone with my scientific background -- and, I suspect, yours.
>
You say that no one has such a position that it is straw man, yet that
I'm foolish in thinking that it is hard to buy? When someone wrote a
book about what constants can be adjusted when creating universes
then of course I am close to certain that the book is fantasy.
No one has knowledge about creating universes. No one has knowledge
what is 95% of mass and energy of current universe. Writing fantasy
books about it is not science.

On Sat, 06 Jan 2024 06:01:57 -0500
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 10:33:04 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
> wrote:
[]

> >>
> >I won't be dragged down into an alternative flame war. I've made
> >suggestions, looks like it's had no effect. Ah well.
>
>
> What a clever way to prove my point for me. You posted to this thread
> entirely on your own to blame me for a flame-war not of my making. To

I was trying to gently get you not to respond in kind, I failed.

> quote another troll target, "Good day, sir. I said, "good day!".
>

Indeed. I give up.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 12:10:38 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

>I was trying to gently get you not to respond in kind, I failed.

Blaming me for something while ignoring the one responsible and then
pretending you didn't do exactly that, guaranteed failure.

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

On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 8:47:31 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 12:10:38 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <ad...@127.0.0.1>
> wrote:
> >I was trying to gently get you not to respond in kind, I failed.
> Blaming me for something while ignoring the one responsible and then
> pretending you didn't do exactly that, guaranteed failure.
.
Jillery must take responsibility for what Jillery posts.
For example, you can, in theory, ignore me, or math professors.

On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 06:45:04 -0800 (PST), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> adds his two-pence:

> Jillery must take responsibility for what Jillery posts.

You and others blame Jillery for what trolls post.

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

On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 3:42:30 PM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 11:32:46 -0800 (PST)
> "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 2:17:29 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> []
> >
> >
> > But don't worry: John Kerr-Mudd is not interested in whether people like you
> > are thoroughly dishonest when that is the only way they can "win" arguments.
> > He is only interested in people being civil to each other. He doesn't even seem
> > to be interested in OOL or evolution -- or paleontology, in sci.bio.paleontology,
> > where he pursues the same "can't we all just be nice to each other" spiel
> > to the exclusion of almost everything else. He's hit me several times
> > with that spiel in both places.
> >
> Well, maybe I'll just leave you two to your flamewars then.

> I came here for factual pros/cons, reasoned arguments

I have never seen you show any interest in these things.
Right on this thread, you have ignored my patient
reasoning in reply to Öö Tiib, accompanied with remarkable
scientific facts that I quoted from Martin Rees (pro fine tuning).
I told jillery more facts of the same sort.

Moreover, when jillery claimed zero interest by me in what she
called "the merits of my case," you seemed to agree with her (cf. "Sure.")
yet you showed zero interest in them yourself.

> and maybe
> pointers to evidence to back them up. My mistake.

The hackneyed repartee of those last two words is a worthless substitute
for reasoning against what I wrote; if anything, it reinforces it.

I'm actually beginning to wonder whether jillery and I are responding
to a junior version of ChatGPT, with no more human thought behind it
than is behind your .sig:

> --
> Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Thus spake the entity with the byline "Kerr-Mudd, John."

Peter Nyikos

I've been busy on other threads earlier this week, and was distracted on this one
by jillery and one other, but I'd like to return to some topics with you.

On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 6:17:31 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Friday 5 January 2024 at 03:02:29 UTC+2, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 6:22:29 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:

I snipped some earlier talk about fine tuning, to where you had shifted to
the following topic:

> > > There is whole multidisciplinary field of science called "synthetic biology"
> > > that works on possibility of different life in exactly our universe.

I then tried to link the two topics together:

> > Yes, exactly as it is -- with the constants what they are.
> > But look at what happens when one of the constants
> > is varied just a bit:
> >
> > " The cosmos is so vast because there is one crucially
> > important huge number N in nature, equal to 1,000,000,
> > OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO. This number
> > measures the strength of the electrical forces that hold
> > atoms together, divided by the force of gravity between
> > them. If N had a few less zeros, only a short-lived miniature
> > universe could exist: no creatures could grow larger than
> > insects, and there would be no time for biological evolution."
> >
> > --Martin Rees, British Astronomer Royal In _Just_Six_Numbers_, p.2
> > https://www.firstscience.com/SITE/ARTICLES/rees.asp
> >

> OK, but that still does not say why there can't be multiple different
> biological systems in that large universe. It does not even attempt
> to claim it.

True, so now I talk about life in our universe. Ours is based on nucleotides
and protein enzymes, using various essential things in the environment,
especially water, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen -- with the main
external source of energy the beams from the sun.

There has been speculation for something like a century about whether
any of these things could be replaced and still have life. One possibility
is the substitution of ammonia for water as the main solvent. Another
is the replacement of oxygen by hydrogen, resulting in respiration that
results in methane instead of carbon dioxide. Archae called metanogens
are doing that now, in our bodies and especially in the bodies of ruminants..

Did you want to discuss these things further?

The issue of their origins might not be very different from the OOL
we have already discussed -- I mean, the biggest problem seems to be
the same for all of them: the production of something that works like
protein enzymes, and something that works like DNA.

We've talked back in December about this issue of OOL with great mutual understanding
(but not complete agreement ) on the thread, JAMES TOUR VICTORIOUS?!

Our back-and-forth ended there with the following post by me:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/vkewFZdg_9g/m/lmfWcND-AAAJ
Dec 22, 2023, 7:42:17 PM

Would you like to comment now on what I wrote there?

Or would you like to finish what we began below before returning
to that topic?

I'd prefer it the other way around: there are lots of misunderstandings
between us below, and it may take a while to clear them all up.
On the other hand, back in December, we had managed to
clear up most misunderstandings already.

Anyway, I leave the decision up to you.

Peter Nyikos

PS I've left in everything we wrote below.

> > > Also the religious scriptures are full of angels, demons, titans,
> > > fire-breathing dragons, talking serpents, sticks turned into snakes and
> > > what not. So I do not see from where you get that "problem" and by
> > > whose position it even exists.
> >
> > From the position of the atheist, agnostic, or skeptic who seriously doubts
> > that there are such creatures as "the scriptures" talk about.
> > IOW, people like yourself, no?
> >
> I can't tell about others. I know few things. One is that we have done
> lot of discoveries about biology during last 200 years. There are no
> reason to think that it suddenly stops. Other is that people like to tell
> fantasy stories. So whatever is told without evidence is worth to be
> skeptical about.
> > > > 2) There is at leas 10 different constants that had to be perfectly
> > > > balanced and "fine tuned" for the universe itself to come about.
> > > > Consequently, life, is solely conditioned upon our universe existing.
> > > >
> > > "Universe" in Conway's Game of Life is 2-dimensional grid with 4 trivial
> > > rules of progress. Universal Turing Machine is possible to manufacture
> > > in it.
> > These are things of pure mathematics, rather simple ones at that,
> > with no existence of the sort that physics talks about, and certainly
> > no biological life, let alone consciousness.
> >
> It is same what I said. Biology as we know it can not exist in Conway's
> Game of Life. Yet complex machinery can.
> > >So by what logic that problem exists is also hard to imagine.
> > You aren't thinking like a physical or biological scientist here.
> >
> Physical and biological sciences are studying our reality. I understand
> that we talk outside of scope of those sciences.
> > > Yes, our universe is needed for our kind of life to exists. But what is surprizing
> > > about it?
> > The low tolerances for a universe where biological life is able to exist.
> > The number N constrains the universe radically in one direction; other
> > of the six constants named by Rees constrain it in both directions.
> > See the webpage I linked for them, and for additional commentary about them.
> >
> What are the Rees constants in Conway's Game of Life? Why we assume
> that whatever other possible universe has concept where those constants
> make sense whatsoever? We know nothing about it but try to conclude
> something from that ignorance.
> > >
> > > If you believe that this huge universe was specially made for to support
> > > one kind of life on one tiny rock orbiting mediocre star (that will turn to
> > > red giant over next billion of years) then it is fine.
> >
> > I have no such belief, and I think you are attacking a straw man here.
> >
> I am attacking nothing. I am concluding that odd position from problems 1)
> and 2) that do not look like problems.
> > > But you must be
> > > capable to see that such position is rather hard to buy as truth or
> > > even anyhow close to truth.
> >
> > YOU are capable to "see" such a foolish thing, because you have not thought seriously
> > about the facts in the webpage I linked, much less in the whole book,
> > which goes into these problems with great depth. Yet your lack of knowledge is probably
> > easy to remedy: the book is short enough to read in one day, yet is quite
> > readable by someone with my scientific background -- and, I suspect, yours.
> >
> You say that no one has such a position that it is straw man, yet that
> I'm foolish in thinking that it is hard to buy? When someone wrote a
> book about what constants can be adjusted when creating universes
> then of course I am close to certain that the book is fantasy.
> No one has knowledge about creating universes. No one has knowledge
> what is 95% of mass and energy of current universe. Writing fantasy
> books about it is not science.

On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 18:42:09 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2nyikos@gmail.com> trolled:

>I've been busy on other threads earlier this week, and was distracted on this one
>by jillery and one other, but I'd like to return to some topics with you.

How ironic, to blame me for distracting you, when I haven't replied to
you and you haven't replied to me, since last Friday. Your trolls are
consistent with the hypothesis that you post them only to give others
an excuse to also exercise their inner trolls and accuse me of
mindless crap.

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

On Friday 12 January 2024 at 04:42:36 UTC+2, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> I've been busy on other threads earlier this week, and was distracted on this one
> by jillery and one other, but I'd like to return to some topics with you.
> On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 6:17:31 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Friday 5 January 2024 at 03:02:29 UTC+2, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 6:22:29 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> I snipped some earlier talk about fine tuning, to where you had shifted to
> the following topic:
>
OK.

> > > > There is whole multidisciplinary field of science called "synthetic biology"
> > > > that works on possibility of different life in exactly our universe..
> I then tried to link the two topics together:
> > > Yes, exactly as it is -- with the constants what they are.
> > > But look at what happens when one of the constants
> > > is varied just a bit:
> > >
> > > " The cosmos is so vast because there is one crucially
> > > important huge number N in nature, equal to 1,000,000,
> > > OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO. This number
> > > measures the strength of the electrical forces that hold
> > > atoms together, divided by the force of gravity between
> > > them. If N had a few less zeros, only a short-lived miniature
> > > universe could exist: no creatures could grow larger than
> > > insects, and there would be no time for biological evolution."
> > >
> > > --Martin Rees, British Astronomer Royal In _Just_Six_Numbers_, p.2
> > > https://www.firstscience.com/SITE/ARTICLES/rees.asp
> > >
>
> > OK, but that still does not say why there can't be multiple different
> > biological systems in that large universe. It does not even attempt
> > to claim it.
>
> True, so now I talk about life in our universe. Ours is based on nucleotides
> and protein enzymes, using various essential things in the environment,
> especially water, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen -- with the main
> external source of energy the beams from the sun.
>
Relatively common knowledge is that our biochemistry is narrow subset
from chemistry that is usable under said constraints.

> There has been speculation for something like a century about whether
> any of these things could be replaced and still have life.
>
Yes. Current synthetic biology does some of that. They search for
alternative peptides, polypeptides, alternative nucleotides useful in
current types of polymers, alternative types of possible biologically
useful polymers (and oligomers) and such.

> One possibility
> is the substitution of ammonia for water as the main solvent. Another
> is the replacement of oxygen by hydrogen, resulting in respiration that
> results in methane instead of carbon dioxide. Archae called metanogens
> are doing that now, in our bodies and especially in the bodies of ruminants.
>
It is expensive to experiment with some nano- or biotech for example in
liquid ammonia (boiling at -33 °C). So unless we actually have some
interest to such conditions it is hard to find investors to such projects.

Otherwise ... usage of some widely common elements (like hydrogen,
oxygen, carbon and nitrogen) as material is obvious as those can form
interesting compounds in variety of conditions. Not usage of some
other (also very common) elements (like helium and neon) is also
obvious as those can not form interesting chemical compounds.
From there the tremendous possible variance only starts.

> Did you want to discuss these things further?
>
I just wanted to understand what is the problem there.

Lets say we are designed or bootstrapped for living on earth-like
planet and then changed over time by whatever designer or gardener. Now
plain logic tells that in some other place and other conditions some other
design is more optimal and so more probably used in that other place.

Or lets alternatively say that we did arise and evolve wildly here. The logic
is still same. Somewhere else some other autocatalytic compounds are
likely more viable candidates for similar developments.

Therefore I do not understand the whole controversy. You said that it is not
good old geocentrism position that this whole universe was specially made
only for to support our concrete life right here. But if it is not that then
there must be some other, unsaid out issue with it.

> The issue of their origins might not be very different from the OOL
> we have already discussed -- I mean, the biggest problem seems to be
> the same for all of them: the production of something that works like
> protein enzymes, and something that works like DNA.
>
I was not discussing origins here, merely if other types of replicating
with change (and therefore evolving) machinery is possible or not in
conditions like here and like elsewhere in this universe and in totally
different universes.

In this universe it is clearly possible and that is already researched to
notable extent.
I do not know anyone who knows anything about other universes let alone
making those. Now if someone for example says that some kind of stable
replicator machinery is possible in one from 100 000 random universes. I
can't argue that it is not so, because I do not know. But I still believe that
they also do not know anything about that.

> We've talked back in December about this issue of OOL with great mutual understanding
> (but not complete agreement ) on the thread, JAMES TOUR VICTORIOUS?!
>
> Our back-and-forth ended there with the following post by me:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/vkewFZdg_9g/m/lmfWcND-AAAJ
> Dec 22, 2023, 7:42:17 PM
>
I am not sure (as it is not shown) that mostly RNA-based proto-life ever
existed here. There seem to be some indirect indications of it, but too
indirect. Otherwise the idea of its existence has no obvious to
me barriers and the idea of it evolving also has no obvious to me barriers.
How and in what order exactly one or other advantage was gained will
probably remain unknown forever. High fidelity, efficiency and robustness
are not really required; those are advantages in competition. But
advantages in competition only matter once there are enough opponents
to compete with. And that means that the whole thing is already
bootstrapped. Losing in competition to weaker or defective offspring,
siblings or ancestors does not make much sense as then the "weaknesses"
and "defects" have to be actually advantageous.

> Would you like to comment now on what I wrote there?
>
> Or would you like to finish what we began below before returning
> to that topic?
>
> I'd prefer it the other way around: there are lots of misunderstandings
> between us below, and it may take a while to clear them all up.
> On the other hand, back in December, we had managed to
> clear up most misunderstandings already.
>
>
> Anyway, I leave the decision up to you.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
> PS I've left in everything we wrote below.
> > > > Also the religious scriptures are full of angels, demons, titans,
> > > > fire-breathing dragons, talking serpents, sticks turned into snakes and
> > > > what not. So I do not see from where you get that "problem" and by
> > > > whose position it even exists.
> > >
> > > From the position of the atheist, agnostic, or skeptic who seriously doubts
> > > that there are such creatures as "the scriptures" talk about.
> > > IOW, people like yourself, no?
> > >
> > I can't tell about others. I know few things. One is that we have done
> > lot of discoveries about biology during last 200 years. There are no
> > reason to think that it suddenly stops. Other is that people like to tell
> > fantasy stories. So whatever is told without evidence is worth to be
> > skeptical about.
> > > > > 2) There is at leas 10 different constants that had to be perfectly
> > > > > balanced and "fine tuned" for the universe itself to come about.
> > > > > Consequently, life, is solely conditioned upon our universe existing.
> > > > >
> > > > "Universe" in Conway's Game of Life is 2-dimensional grid with 4 trivial
> > > > rules of progress. Universal Turing Machine is possible to manufacture
> > > > in it.
> > > These are things of pure mathematics, rather simple ones at that,
> > > with no existence of the sort that physics talks about, and certainly
> > > no biological life, let alone consciousness.
> > >
> > It is same what I said. Biology as we know it can not exist in Conway's
> > Game of Life. Yet complex machinery can.
> > > >So by what logic that problem exists is also hard to imagine.
> > > You aren't thinking like a physical or biological scientist here.
> > >
> > Physical and biological sciences are studying our reality. I understand
> > that we talk outside of scope of those sciences.
> > > > Yes, our universe is needed for our kind of life to exists. But what is surprizing
> > > > about it?
> > > The low tolerances for a universe where biological life is able to exist.
> > > The number N constrains the universe radically in one direction; other
> > > of the six constants named by Rees constrain it in both directions.
> > > See the webpage I linked for them, and for additional commentary about them.
> > >
> > What are the Rees constants in Conway's Game of Life? Why we assume
> > that whatever other possible universe has concept where those constants
> > make sense whatsoever? We know nothing about it but try to conclude
> > something from that ignorance.
> > > >
> > > > If you believe that this huge universe was specially made for to support
> > > > one kind of life on one tiny rock orbiting mediocre star (that will turn to
> > > > red giant over next billion of years) then it is fine.
> > >
> > > I have no such belief, and I think you are attacking a straw man here..
> > >
> > I am attacking nothing. I am concluding that odd position from problems 1)
> > and 2) that do not look like problems.
> > > > But you must be
> > > > capable to see that such position is rather hard to buy as truth or
> > > > even anyhow close to truth.
> > >
> > > YOU are capable to "see" such a foolish thing, because you have not thought seriously
> > > about the facts in the webpage I linked, much less in the whole book,
> > > which goes into these problems with great depth. Yet your lack of knowledge is probably
> > > easy to remedy: the book is short enough to read in one day, yet is quite
> > > readable by someone with my scientific background -- and, I suspect, yours.
> > >
> > You say that no one has such a position that it is straw man, yet that
> > I'm foolish in thinking that it is hard to buy? When someone wrote a
> > book about what constants can be adjusted when creating universes
> > then of course I am close to certain that the book is fantasy.
> > No one has knowledge about creating universes. No one has knowledge
> > what is 95% of mass and energy of current universe. Writing fantasy
> > books about it is not science.

On 1/12/24 8:06 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Friday 12 January 2024 at 04:42:36 UTC+2, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I've been busy on other threads earlier this week, and was distracted on this one
>> by jillery and one other, but I'd like to return to some topics with you.
>> On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 6:17:31 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>> On Friday 5 January 2024 at 03:02:29 UTC+2, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 6:22:29 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>
>> I snipped some earlier talk about fine tuning, to where you had shifted to
>> the following topic:
>>
> OK.
>
>>>>> There is whole multidisciplinary field of science called "synthetic biology"
>>>>> that works on possibility of different life in exactly our universe.
>> I then tried to link the two topics together:
>>>> Yes, exactly as it is -- with the constants what they are.
>>>> But look at what happens when one of the constants
>>>> is varied just a bit:
>>>>
>>>> " The cosmos is so vast because there is one crucially
>>>> important huge number N in nature, equal to 1,000,000,
>>>> OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO. This number
>>>> measures the strength of the electrical forces that hold
>>>> atoms together, divided by the force of gravity between
>>>> them. If N had a few less zeros, only a short-lived miniature
>>>> universe could exist: no creatures could grow larger than
>>>> insects, and there would be no time for biological evolution."
>>>>
>>>> --Martin Rees, British Astronomer Royal In _Just_Six_Numbers_, p.2
>>>> https://www.firstscience.com/SITE/ARTICLES/rees.asp
>>>>
>>
>>> OK, but that still does not say why there can't be multiple different
>>> biological systems in that large universe. It does not even attempt
>>> to claim it.
>>
>> True, so now I talk about life in our universe. Ours is based on nucleotides
>> and protein enzymes, using various essential things in the environment,
>> especially water, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen -- with the main
>> external source of energy the beams from the sun.
>>
> Relatively common knowledge is that our biochemistry is narrow subset
> from chemistry that is usable under said constraints.
>
>> There has been speculation for something like a century about whether
>> any of these things could be replaced and still have life.
>>
> Yes. Current synthetic biology does some of that. They search for
> alternative peptides, polypeptides, alternative nucleotides useful in
> current types of polymers, alternative types of possible biologically
> useful polymers (and oligomers) and such.
>
>> One possibility
>> is the substitution of ammonia for water as the main solvent. Another
>> is the replacement of oxygen by hydrogen, resulting in respiration that
>> results in methane instead of carbon dioxide. Archae called metanogens
>> are doing that now, in our bodies and especially in the bodies of ruminants.
>>
> It is expensive to experiment with some nano- or biotech for example in
> liquid ammonia (boiling at -33 °C). So unless we actually have some
> interest to such conditions it is hard to find investors to such projects.
>
> Otherwise ... usage of some widely common elements (like hydrogen,
> oxygen, carbon and nitrogen) as material is obvious as those can form
> interesting compounds in variety of conditions. Not usage of some
> other (also very common) elements (like helium and neon) is also
> obvious as those can not form interesting chemical compounds.
> From there the tremendous possible variance only starts.
>
>> Did you want to discuss these things further?
>>
> I just wanted to understand what is the problem there.
>
> Lets say we are designed or bootstrapped for living on earth-like
> planet and then changed over time by whatever designer or gardener. Now
> plain logic tells that in some other place and other conditions some other
> design is more optimal and so more probably used in that other place.
>
> Or lets alternatively say that we did arise and evolve wildly here. The logic
> is still same. Somewhere else some other autocatalytic compounds are
> likely more viable candidates for similar developments.
>
> Therefore I do not understand the whole controversy. You said that it is not
> good old geocentrism position that this whole universe was specially made
> only for to support our concrete life right here. But if it is not that then
> there must be some other, unsaid out issue with it.
>
>> The issue of their origins might not be very different from the OOL
>> we have already discussed -- I mean, the biggest problem seems to be
>> the same for all of them: the production of something that works like
>> protein enzymes, and something that works like DNA.
>>
> I was not discussing origins here, merely if other types of replicating
> with change (and therefore evolving) machinery is possible or not in
> conditions like here and like elsewhere in this universe and in totally
> different universes.
>
> In this universe it is clearly possible and that is already researched to
> notable extent.
>
> I do not know anyone who knows anything about other universes let alone
> making those. Now if someone for example says that some kind of stable
> replicator machinery is possible in one from 100 000 random universes. I
> can't argue that it is not so, because I do not know. But I still believe that
> they also do not know anything about that.
>
>> We've talked back in December about this issue of OOL with great mutual understanding
>> (but not complete agreement ) on the thread, JAMES TOUR VICTORIOUS?!
>>
>> Our back-and-forth ended there with the following post by me:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/vkewFZdg_9g/m/lmfWcND-AAAJ
>> Dec 22, 2023, 7:42:17 PM
>>
> I am not sure (as it is not shown) that mostly RNA-based proto-life ever
> existed here. There seem to be some indirect indications of it, but too
> indirect. Otherwise the idea of its existence has no obvious to
> me barriers and the idea of it evolving also has no obvious to me barriers.
> How and in what order exactly one or other advantage was gained will
> probably remain unknown forever. High fidelity, efficiency and robustness
> are not really required; those are advantages in competition. But
> advantages in competition only matter once there are enough opponents
> to compete with. And that means that the whole thing is already
> bootstrapped. Losing in competition to weaker or defective offspring,
> siblings or ancestors does not make much sense as then the "weaknesses"
> and "defects" have to be actually advantageous.
>
>> Would you like to comment now on what I wrote there?
>>
>> Or would you like to finish what we began below before returning
>> to that topic?
>>
>> I'd prefer it the other way around: there are lots of misunderstandings
>> between us below, and it may take a while to clear them all up.
>> On the other hand, back in December, we had managed to
>> clear up most misunderstandings already.
>>
>>
>> Anyway, I leave the decision up to you.
>>
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>> PS I've left in everything we wrote below.
>>>>> Also the religious scriptures are full of angels, demons, titans,
>>>>> fire-breathing dragons, talking serpents, sticks turned into snakes and
>>>>> what not. So I do not see from where you get that "problem" and by
>>>>> whose position it even exists.
>>>>
>>>> From the position of the atheist, agnostic, or skeptic who seriously doubts
>>>> that there are such creatures as "the scriptures" talk about.
>>>> IOW, people like yourself, no?
>>>>
>>> I can't tell about others. I know few things. One is that we have done
>>> lot of discoveries about biology during last 200 years. There are no
>>> reason to think that it suddenly stops. Other is that people like to tell
>>> fantasy stories. So whatever is told without evidence is worth to be
>>> skeptical about.
>>>>>> 2) There is at leas 10 different constants that had to be perfectly
>>>>>> balanced and "fine tuned" for the universe itself to come about.
>>>>>> Consequently, life, is solely conditioned upon our universe existing.
>>>>>>
>>>>> "Universe" in Conway's Game of Life is 2-dimensional grid with 4 trivial
>>>>> rules of progress. Universal Turing Machine is possible to manufacture
>>>>> in it.
>>>> These are things of pure mathematics, rather simple ones at that,
>>>> with no existence of the sort that physics talks about, and certainly
>>>> no biological life, let alone consciousness.
>>>>
>>> It is same what I said. Biology as we know it can not exist in Conway's
>>> Game of Life. Yet complex machinery can.
>>>>> So by what logic that problem exists is also hard to imagine.
>>>> You aren't thinking like a physical or biological scientist here.
>>>>
>>> Physical and biological sciences are studying our reality. I understand
>>> that we talk outside of scope of those sciences.
>>>>> Yes, our universe is needed for our kind of life to exists. But what is surprizing
>>>>> about it?
>>>> The low tolerances for a universe where biological life is able to exist.
>>>> The number N constrains the universe radically in one direction; other
>>>> of the six constants named by Rees constrain it in both directions.
>>>> See the webpage I linked for them, and for additional commentary about them.
>>>>
>>> What are the Rees constants in Conway's Game of Life? Why we assume
>>> that whatever other possible universe has concept where those constants
>>> make sense whatsoever? We know nothing about it but try to conclude
>>> something from that ignorance.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you believe that this huge universe was specially made for to support
>>>>> one kind of life on one tiny rock orbiting mediocre star (that will turn to
>>>>> red giant over next billion of years) then it is fine.
>>>>
>>>> I have no such belief, and I think you are attacking a straw man here.
>>>>
>>> I am attacking nothing. I am concluding that odd position from problems 1)
>>> and 2) that do not look like problems.
>>>>> But you must be
>>>>> capable to see that such position is rather hard to buy as truth or
>>>>> even anyhow close to truth.
>>>>
>>>> YOU are capable to "see" such a foolish thing, because you have not thought seriously
>>>> about the facts in the webpage I linked, much less in the whole book,
>>>> which goes into these problems with great depth. Yet your lack of knowledge is probably
>>>> easy to remedy: the book is short enough to read in one day, yet is quite
>>>> readable by someone with my scientific background -- and, I suspect, yours.
>>>>
>>> You say that no one has such a position that it is straw man, yet that
>>> I'm foolish in thinking that it is hard to buy? When someone wrote a
>>> book about what constants can be adjusted when creating universes
>>> then of course I am close to certain that the book is fantasy.
>>> No one has knowledge about creating universes. No one has knowledge
>>> what is 95% of mass and energy of current universe. Writing fantasy
>>> books about it is not science.
>
I've searched without success for any serious reviews from the physics
and cosmology communities. In view of the unknown number of parameters
(and dependencies among them) describing the known universe, it seems
implausible the "just six" would be sufficient. As for the possibility
of multiverses, we are currently unable to evaluate what they might be
like. It may be worthwhile to think about them, but I doubt many
cosmologists would agree. There are too many interesting current
problems to worry about problems we can't see.

On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 11:07:37 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Friday 12 January 2024 at 04:42:36 UTC+2, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I've been busy on other threads earlier this week, and was distracted on this one
> > by jillery and one other, but I'd like to return to some topics with you.
> > On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 6:17:31 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > > On Friday 5 January 2024 at 03:02:29 UTC+2, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 6:22:29 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> >
> > I snipped some earlier talk about fine tuning, to where you had shifted to
> > the following topic:
> >
> OK.

> > > > > There is whole multidisciplinary field of science called "synthetic biology"
> > > > > that works on possibility of different life in exactly our universe.

> > I then tried to link the two topics together:

> > > > Yes, exactly as it is -- with the constants what they are.
> > > > But look at what happens when one of the constants
> > > > is varied just a bit:
> > > >
> > > > " The cosmos is so vast because there is one crucially
> > > > important huge number N in nature, equal to 1,000,000,
> > > > OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO. This number
> > > > measures the strength of the electrical forces that hold
> > > > atoms together, divided by the force of gravity between
> > > > them. If N had a few less zeros, only a short-lived miniature
> > > > universe could exist: no creatures could grow larger than
> > > > insects, and there would be no time for biological evolution."
> > > >
> > > > --Martin Rees, British Astronomer Royal In _Just_Six_Numbers_, p.2
> > > > https://www.firstscience.com/SITE/ARTICLES/rees.asp
> > > >
> >
> > > OK, but that still does not say why there can't be multiple different
> > > biological systems in that large universe. It does not even attempt
> > > to claim it.
> >
> > True, so now I talk about life in our universe. Ours is based on nucleotides
> > and protein enzymes, using various essential things in the environment,
> > especially water, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen -- with the main
> > external source of energy the beams from the sun.
> >
> Relatively common knowledge is that our biochemistry is narrow subset
> from chemistry that is usable under said constraints.

I know of few really plausible ones. Carbon is the only element capable
of forming long chains with two free bonds with which to grab other atoms.
Silicon, the only element that has been suggested as a replacement,
cannot form stable chains even ten atoms long; long chains alternate silicon atoms
it with oxygen, as in silicones. Have you seen any claims that such chains can substitute
for carbon chains for a variety of lipids as great as the ones needed for life as we know it?

> > There has been speculation for something like a century about whether
> > any of these things could be replaced and still have life.
> >
> Yes. Current synthetic biology does some of that. They search for
> alternative peptides, polypeptides, alternative nucleotides useful in
> current types of polymers, alternative types of possible biologically
> useful polymers (and oligomers) and such.

Those all have the backdrop of our biological makeup of
being based on nucleotides and polypeptides, don't they?

> > One possibility
> > is the substitution of ammonia for water as the main solvent. Another
> > is the replacement of oxygen by hydrogen, resulting in respiration that
> > results in methane instead of carbon dioxide. Archae called metanogens
> > are doing that now, in our bodies and especially in the bodies of ruminants.
> >
> It is expensive to experiment with some nano- or biotech for example in
> liquid ammonia (boiling at -33 °C). So unless we actually have some
> interest to such conditions it is hard to find investors to such projects..

The gas giant planets have lots of ammonia and the low temperatures
needed for it. But there seems to be little enthusiasm among serious
planetary scientists for the idea that they could harbor life.

But the point I was leading up to is that, besides water and hydrogen fluoride,
ammonia is the best universal solvent. And fluorine far less common in the universe
than either oxygen or nitrogen.

> Otherwise ... usage of some widely common elements (like hydrogen,
> oxygen, carbon and nitrogen) as material is obvious as those can form
> interesting compounds in variety of conditions. Not usage of some
> other (also very common) elements (like helium and neon) is also
> obvious as those can not form interesting chemical compounds.
> From there the tremendous possible variance only starts.

> > Did you want to discuss these things further?
> >
> I just wanted to understand what is the problem there.

The main problems are in opposite directions from there.
(1) the tremendous difficulties of life getting going,
even under the most favorable naturally occurring external conditions and
(2) the extremely narrow range of physical constants
that are compatible with favoring any kind of life at all.

We talked about (1) back in December. This thread
is mainly about (2). I gave you one example for (2) up there.
I gave Erik Simpson actual data on it, and also on another
example which severely limits deviations from what we have on *both* directions:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/tRrS_7ExHWw/m/82-h-x41BgAJ
Re: Hard Atheism of John Harshman Contrasted with Agnosticism of Peter Nyikos
Jan 9, 2024, 10:22:34 PM

> Lets say we are designed or bootstrapped for living on earth-like
> planet and then changed over time by whatever designer or gardener.

I am much more in tune with us having evolved here. The last act of
design whose possibility I take at all seriously was over 500 million years ago,
and most likely done by "space aliens" not much more intelligent than ourselves,
if it was done at all.

> Now plain logic tells that in some other place and other conditions some other
> design is more optimal and so more probably used in that other place.

These other places are within our universe and are subject to main problem (1),
so "probably used" might talk about nonexistent organisms.

> Or lets alternatively say that we did arise and evolve wildly here. The logic
> is still same. Somewhere else some other autocatalytic compounds are
> likely more viable candidates for similar developments.

You mean catalytic compounds ["autocatalytic" is a very specialized concept].
It took an awful lot of research just to discover ribozymes as an alternative
to protein enzymes. A few substitutes for RNA have been found, such as PNA,
but there is no reason to think that that they any more likely to get over problem (1)
than is RNA.

> Therefore I do not understand the whole controversy. You said that it is not
> good old geocentrism position that this whole universe was specially made
> only for to support our concrete life right here.

It is geocentric because I do acknowledge the possibility of other forms of life
in our universe, and also life forms with essentially the same biochemistry as ours.
But all seem to have the problem (1), not just our concrete life right here..

Please take a look at what I told Erik in the linked post. It might shed light
on some of the things you talked about later. I've deleted them this time,
but I'll be glad to discuss them with you on Monday.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 1:52:38 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
[...]
>>> On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 6:17:31 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:

> >>> You say that no one has such a position that it is straw man, yet that
> >>> I'm foolish in thinking that it is hard to buy? When someone wrote a
> >>> book about what constants can be adjusted when creating universes
> >>> then of course I am close to certain that the book is fantasy.

This is a misunderstanding by Öö. The book I was writing about did
not talk about "creating universes," let alone by adjusting constants. It talked
about how extremely close those constants would have to be to those in
our universe for any universe to be able to harbor life, especially intelligent life.

> >>> No one has knowledge about creating universes. No one has knowledge
> >>> what is 95% of mass and energy of current universe. Writing fantasy
> >>> books about it is not science.

Martin Rees's little book only mentioned dark matter to assess the role of gravity
in the expansion of our universe; similar simple, KNOWN things had to do with dark energy.

> >
> I've searched without success for any serious reviews from the physics
> and cosmology communities.

Paul Davies, another esteemed cosmologist/physicist, talked about several
such constraints in the much longer book, _The_Goldilocks_Dilemma:
_Why_is_the_Universe_Just_Right_for_Life_? From his extensive bibliography
at the end, it seems like the knowledgeable people were too busy writing about
these issues themselves to take time to review each others' books.

> In view of the unknown number of parameters
> (and dependencies among them) describing the known universe, it seems
> implausible the "just six" would be sufficient.

Of course, they are not, but Rees should have therefore stuck to the word
"blueprint" rather than "recipe." But "just six" should be enough to make
people seriously think about the fantastic odds against the observable universe
being the whole of reality.

You seemed to miss this point when you continued as follows.

> As for the possibility of multiverses, we are currently unable to evaluate what they
> might be like. It may be worthwhile to think about them, but I doubt many
> cosmologists would agree.

The bibliography at the end of Davies's book suggests that half of the ones listed
*would* agree. The other half may be off thinking about other fascinating phenomena,
as you suggest here:

> There are too many interesting current
> problems to worry about problems we can't see.

Yes, including the origin of life in this universe, where it obviously IS possible.
I've talked about that quite a lot with Mr. Tiib, especially back in December.
But mainly, I've been talking to everyone about the way James Tour has been showing
just how rudimentary our knowledge about it is.

More about this next week. It's time to begin my weekend break.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 03:57:37 UTC+2, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 11:07:37 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Friday 12 January 2024 at 04:42:36 UTC+2, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I've been busy on other threads earlier this week, and was distracted on this one
> > > by jillery and one other, but I'd like to return to some topics with you.
> > > On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 6:17:31 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > > > On Friday 5 January 2024 at 03:02:29 UTC+2, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 6:22:29 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > >
> > > I snipped some earlier talk about fine tuning, to where you had shifted to
> > > the following topic:
> > >
> > OK.
>
> > > > > > There is whole multidisciplinary field of science called "synthetic biology"
> > > > > > that works on possibility of different life in exactly our universe.
>
> > > I then tried to link the two topics together:
>
> > > > > Yes, exactly as it is -- with the constants what they are.
> > > > > But look at what happens when one of the constants
> > > > > is varied just a bit:
> > > > >
> > > > > " The cosmos is so vast because there is one crucially
> > > > > important huge number N in nature, equal to 1,000,000,
> > > > > OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO,OOO. This number
> > > > > measures the strength of the electrical forces that hold
> > > > > atoms together, divided by the force of gravity between
> > > > > them. If N had a few less zeros, only a short-lived miniature
> > > > > universe could exist: no creatures could grow larger than
> > > > > insects, and there would be no time for biological evolution."
> > > > >
> > > > > --Martin Rees, British Astronomer Royal In _Just_Six_Numbers_, p.2
> > > > > https://www.firstscience.com/SITE/ARTICLES/rees.asp
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > OK, but that still does not say why there can't be multiple different
> > > > biological systems in that large universe. It does not even attempt
> > > > to claim it.
> > >
> > > True, so now I talk about life in our universe. Ours is based on nucleotides
> > > and protein enzymes, using various essential things in the environment,
> > > especially water, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen -- with the main
> > > external source of energy the beams from the sun.
> > >
> > Relatively common knowledge is that our biochemistry is narrow subset
> > from chemistry that is usable under said constraints.
>
> I know of few really plausible ones. Carbon is the only element capable
> of forming long chains with two free bonds with which to grab other atoms..
> Silicon, the only element that has been suggested as a replacement,
> cannot form stable chains even ten atoms long; long chains alternate silicon atoms
> it with oxygen, as in silicones. Have you seen any claims that such chains can substitute
> for carbon chains for a variety of lipids as great as the ones needed for life as we know it?
>
That I addressed in other comment below that you did not comment: "Usage
of some widely common ..."

About iron, silicon, magnesium and sulfur (that are also quite common)
it is likely that those have also important role in majority of possible
biochemistries. For something to take role of carbon would probably take very
different pressures and/or temperatures that are expensive for us to
experiment with.

> > > There has been speculation for something like a century about whether
> > > any of these things could be replaced and still have life.
> > >
> > Yes. Current synthetic biology does some of that. They search for
> > alternative peptides, polypeptides, alternative nucleotides useful in
> > current types of polymers, alternative types of possible biologically
> > useful polymers (and oligomers) and such.
>
> Those all have the backdrop of our biological makeup of
> being based on nucleotides and polypeptides, don't they?
>
The space of possibilities of combinations is astronomically huge
compared to few what our life actually uses. It is simply cheaper
to experiment with an amino acid that life does not use in
otherwise normal peptide than to construct totally new type
of polymers. Lower hanging fruits will be picked first. I am actually
quite worried about that kind of research. Result can have or gain
some primitive advantage, so capable to spread ... while being toxic
to our nature.

> > > One possibility
> > > is the substitution of ammonia for water as the main solvent. Another
> > > is the replacement of oxygen by hydrogen, resulting in respiration that
> > > results in methane instead of carbon dioxide. Archae called metanogens
> > > are doing that now, in our bodies and especially in the bodies of ruminants.
> > >
> > It is expensive to experiment with some nano- or biotech for example in
> > liquid ammonia (boiling at -33 °C). So unless we actually have some
> > interest to such conditions it is hard to find investors to such projects.
>
> The gas giant planets have lots of ammonia and the low temperatures
> needed for it. But there seems to be little enthusiasm among serious
> planetary scientists for the idea that they could harbor life.
>
Yes perhaps for abiogenesis there has to be more stability than processes
in gas giant or star can provide. We have no idea what sufficiently
advanced intelligent designer can or can not do. We know about only ourselves.
We can't do something that lives in gas giant.

> But the point I was leading up to is that, besides water and hydrogen fluoride,
> ammonia is the best universal solvent. And fluorine far less common in the universe
> than either oxygen or nitrogen.
>
Exactly, water is most obvious since hydrogen and oxygen are most
abundant in universe. As it is used in our life it contradicts with neither
non-directed abiogenesis nor designer. Abiogenesis is expected to
stumble upon most abundant and designer is expected to use
materials that are highly available.

> > Otherwise ... usage of some widely common elements (like hydrogen,
> > oxygen, carbon and nitrogen) as material is obvious as those can form
> > interesting compounds in variety of conditions. Not usage of some
> > other (also very common) elements (like helium and neon) is also
> > obvious as those can not form interesting chemical compounds.
> > From there the tremendous possible variance only starts.
>
> > > Did you want to discuss these things further?
> > >
> > I just wanted to understand what is the problem there.
>
> The main problems are in opposite directions from there.
> (1) the tremendous difficulties of life getting going,
> even under the most favorable naturally occurring external conditions and
> (2) the extremely narrow range of physical constants
> that are compatible with favoring any kind of life at all.
>
Life had tremendous difficulties that is fact as it took hundreds of millions of years
on huge territories. Showing processes that take hundreds of millions years
on huge territories in laboratory is even more tremendously difficult. That is also
fact. But those difficulties do say nothing about abiogenesis. Those slightly
counter-indicate design. Was the plan to bootstrap something primitive and
then to let it to vegetate through easily predictable events like
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huronian_glaciation>? The design hypothesis is
what is missing. Abiogenesis research can just point at facts that ... yes we
don't know a lot as it is difficult and expensive. Give budget and we research
it further.

> We talked about (1) back in December. This thread
> is mainly about (2). I gave you one example for (2) up there.
> I gave Erik Simpson actual data on it, and also on another
> example which severely limits deviations from what we have on *both* directions:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/tRrS_7ExHWw/m/82-h-x41BgAJ
> Re: Hard Atheism of John Harshman Contrasted with Agnosticism of Peter Nyikos
> Jan 9, 2024, 10:22:34 PM
>
Yes, like I said "I can't argue that it is not so [not fine tuned], because I do not
know. But I still believe that they [claiming fine tuning] also do not know
anything about that." Normal atheist position: can be so but I don't
know. The merged position that it was fine tuned for life on earth alone
(regardless if designed or self-generated) is still apparent vanity and
geocentrism, isn't it?

On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 06:20:19 -0800 (PST)
Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote:

[]
> >
> I mean auto-catalytic and cross-catalytic compound sets ... discoveries there will
> go on, and new things are reported more rapidly than I can read. I agree that
> there are plenty of problems with current abiogenesis hypotheses but nothing
> there is exactly a barrier. Barrier is what whale with gills or horse with wings has
> to climb over for to evolve.
>

A Proper Designer could fix that, if only someone would wake them up. Oh -
god doesn't like whales, they don't evolve properly </mixed ID message>

[]
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.