Thank you for continuing this discussion. This reply has been written with the help of a scientist.
The article you cited about Orgel’s work talked a great deal about abiogenesis. The comments mentioned about abiogenesis and Orgel’s “laws” were in light of the entire article, not just a few sentences about bacteria.
This depends on how you define “unsolved.” A materialistic solution based on what was historically called “chemical evolution” but is now more commonly called “abiogenesis” is unsolved. A creationist believes the reason for this is simple: Natural processes are inadequate to form life in and of themselves. It is not that the origin of life is an unknown field waiting for initial studies. Thousands of experiments have plausibly been performed since 1953, when the Miller-Urey spark experiment converted methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen into mostly tar, a small percentage of other organic compounds totaling over 100 different kinds in number--most of which would act as contaminants and hence interfere with an origin of life--and a yet a much smaller portion of various amino acids, but which would have been in the wrong ratios to do anything useful. Abiogenesis cannot get out of the starting blocks. It cannot even take the first step successfully. This pattern is repeated through experiments performed at any stage desired. As discussed in the article at
www.osf.io/p5nw3 , one of the most basic properties of nature, randomization, appears to thwart every step of abiogenesis.
So, the field is quite well known. However, every observed experiment in the field appears to confirm that randomization makes a natural origin impossible.
So, in one sense the problem IS solved. We understand why natural processes cannot create life. In effect there has been no real progress since 1953. There is no observed basis to expect this to improve even after hundreds of years. The issue is that so many people are so committed to materialism that the strength of the evidence is irrelevant.
If you understood how randomization works and the solidity with which its influence in abiogenesis has been confirmed, you should understand that this appears to be only blind hope in denial of the evidence.
Actually, the mathematical analysis is a major element of randomization.
There is a third option, initial creation of a limited number of broad categories. These members of these categories would have been created with a broad range of potential variation. Adaptive radiation would have caused specialization within the initial genome. An initially created cat-kind would have evolved into house cats, pumas, leopards, lions, and tigers. However, specialization takes place at the loss of information. A house cat has lost the ability to become a lion and vice-versa. The range of variation possible can be increased to a small degree by mutations. But, this only has a relatively minor impact on the total genome. This is the Biblical perspective. Members of a kind can trace their genetic history to a common progenitor. Even today, cats, bears, canines, cattle, etc. can be of different species and genera and still be linked together by hybrids. A quick check on Wikipedia of cat hybrid, bear hybrid etc. discusses this.
The Bible does not define the boundaries of the kinds. It had no reason to do so. However, it appears that in general the family level is where the initial creation would fit into the modern scheme.
This sounds good from a general perspective. This argument is falsified by the article mentioned earlier at www.osf.io/p5nw3 unless you or someone can show that the problem of randomization can be overcome. Entropy is simply a mathematical expression of randomization. When something appears to be going against entropy, one should be very, very careful about flippantly ignoring the red flags this poses just because it might contradict his personal philosophical preferences.
Orgel said that bacteria evolve. A creationist has no problem with that.
In a later post, Bugenhagen talked about how single-cell algae was able to mutate into multi-cellular algae.
This is basically evolution within the same kind. Algae are known to exist in both single-cellular form and multiple cellular form. This is merely variation characteristic of algae in general.
A more detailed analysis of the change could confirm its relative insignificance or it could be worthy of front-page news. Random behaviors need to be characterized by two behaviors: 1) the statistical probability of the event happening and 2) the number of opportunities for it to occur. So, if the starting genome was known for an initial single-cell alga and if the final genome was known for its multicellular form, then the discussion can become meaningful.
If the number of mutations required for the conversion are small and the number of opportunities are large, the event is insignificant. However, in the multi-cellular form there is a web encompassing the individual algae cells. If this web consists of an entirely new protein in the cell defined in the genome, is excreted through an opening in the cellular membranes as defined in the genomes, and if the amount of webbing is controlled by a complex feedback loop defined in the genome, then this could represent a major discovery.
At this point, the evolutions of the bacteria and algae make for interesting conversation. However, to be of significant interest they need to have an analysis such as mentioned above of the statistical difficulty of the event occurring and the number of opportunities for it to take place.
The article you cited about Orgel’s work talked a great deal about abiogenesis. The comments mentioned about abiogenesis and Orgel’s “laws” were in light of the entire article, not just a few sentences about bacteria.
This depends on how you define “unsolved.” A materialistic solution based on what was historically called “chemical evolution” but is now more commonly called “abiogenesis” is unsolved. A creationist believes the reason for this is simple: Natural processes are inadequate to form life in and of themselves. It is not that the origin of life is an unknown field waiting for initial studies. Thousands of experiments have plausibly been performed since 1953, when the Miller-Urey spark experiment converted methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen into mostly tar, a small percentage of other organic compounds totaling over 100 different kinds in number--most of which would act as contaminants and hence interfere with an origin of life--and a yet a much smaller portion of various amino acids, but which would have been in the wrong ratios to do anything useful. Abiogenesis cannot get out of the starting blocks. It cannot even take the first step successfully. This pattern is repeated through experiments performed at any stage desired. As discussed in the article at
www.osf.io/p5nw3 , one of the most basic properties of nature, randomization, appears to thwart every step of abiogenesis.
So, the field is quite well known. However, every observed experiment in the field appears to confirm that randomization makes a natural origin impossible.
So, in one sense the problem IS solved. We understand why natural processes cannot create life. In effect there has been no real progress since 1953. There is no observed basis to expect this to improve even after hundreds of years. The issue is that so many people are so committed to materialism that the strength of the evidence is irrelevant.
If you understood how randomization works and the solidity with which its influence in abiogenesis has been confirmed, you should understand that this appears to be only blind hope in denial of the evidence.
Actually, the mathematical analysis is a major element of randomization.
There is a third option, initial creation of a limited number of broad categories. These members of these categories would have been created with a broad range of potential variation. Adaptive radiation would have caused specialization within the initial genome. An initially created cat-kind would have evolved into house cats, pumas, leopards, lions, and tigers. However, specialization takes place at the loss of information. A house cat has lost the ability to become a lion and vice-versa. The range of variation possible can be increased to a small degree by mutations. But, this only has a relatively minor impact on the total genome. This is the Biblical perspective. Members of a kind can trace their genetic history to a common progenitor. Even today, cats, bears, canines, cattle, etc. can be of different species and genera and still be linked together by hybrids. A quick check on Wikipedia of cat hybrid, bear hybrid etc. discusses this.
The Bible does not define the boundaries of the kinds. It had no reason to do so. However, it appears that in general the family level is where the initial creation would fit into the modern scheme.
This sounds good from a general perspective. This argument is falsified by the article mentioned earlier at www.osf.io/p5nw3 unless you or someone can show that the problem of randomization can be overcome. Entropy is simply a mathematical expression of randomization. When something appears to be going against entropy, one should be very, very careful about flippantly ignoring the red flags this poses just because it might contradict his personal philosophical preferences.
Orgel said that bacteria evolve. A creationist has no problem with that.
In a later post, Bugenhagen talked about how single-cell algae was able to mutate into multi-cellular algae.
This is basically evolution within the same kind. Algae are known to exist in both single-cellular form and multiple cellular form. This is merely variation characteristic of algae in general.
A more detailed analysis of the change could confirm its relative insignificance or it could be worthy of front-page news. Random behaviors need to be characterized by two behaviors: 1) the statistical probability of the event happening and 2) the number of opportunities for it to occur. So, if the starting genome was known for an initial single-cell alga and if the final genome was known for its multicellular form, then the discussion can become meaningful.
If the number of mutations required for the conversion are small and the number of opportunities are large, the event is insignificant. However, in the multi-cellular form there is a web encompassing the individual algae cells. If this web consists of an entirely new protein in the cell defined in the genome, is excreted through an opening in the cellular membranes as defined in the genomes, and if the amount of webbing is controlled by a complex feedback loop defined in the genome, then this could represent a major discovery.
At this point, the evolutions of the bacteria and algae make for interesting conversation. However, to be of significant interest they need to have an analysis such as mentioned above of the statistical difficulty of the event occurring and the number of opportunities for it to take place.
