> Tyler: Abiogenesis advocates have two problems to address: the origin of a
> chemical structure that appears irreducibly complex and the origin of
> biological information.
Pim: " I think that the first problem is already solved to you: A
system that _appears_ IC. Since we have seen how irreducibly complex
systems can arise gradually this need not be a problem."
David: For me, systems appear to be IC until unguided mechanisms are
found to demonstrate that the term is a misnomer. To date, this has
not been done. The cell is irreducibly complex IMO. Also the
I showed you data which indicate that IC systems can happen through gradual steps. So
a cell being IC is no evidence against evolution.
Pim: "The second problem needs some clarification. Do you mean to
say with "origin of biological information" the origin of RNA/DNA ?"
NO - because DNA/RNA is the chemical carrier of information. The
analogy has long been made between the paper and the printing on it:
the paper is merely the carrier for information. So also DNA/RNA.
SO this is the same old "information" argument ? Please define information, after all the
proponents of this "information" idea need to show why this is a problem.
I had written:
"I think all are agreed that no one has yet proposed a mechanism
or mechanisms for solving these problems. In the absence of a
mechanism, time is of no value: chemicals settle down to an
Pim: " But that assumes that chemicals are kept at their
equilibrium. It is exactly the far equilibrium processes which make
this topic so interesting."
I happen to agree with you. Can we throw out Darwin's "warm little
pond" as having no relevance to abiogenesis?
Perhaps, perhaps not.