But, isn’t the issue not only the amount of information required but also the amount of time and space that was available to work with?
To pick one scientific paper which I think summarizes what you’re talking about, this paper discusses “[...][t]he implausibility of the suggestion that complicated cycles could self-organize, and the importance of learning more about the potential of surfaces to help organize simpler cycles[...]”.
The chemistry discussed in that paper is well above my head, but I can still read it well enough to conclude that it seems to fallaciously arrive at probabilistic-sounding conclusions (i.e. “To postulate one fortuitously catalyzed reaction, perhaps catalyzed by a metal ion, might be reasonable, but to postulate a suite of them is to appeal to magic.”) without actually doing any probability calculations. It’s not enough to point out that the processes required to bootstrap a citric acid cycle are unlikely; how unlikely are they compared to the number of opportunities?
Am I missing something important? The above is my current understanding of the situation which I recognize to be low-level, and I present it primarily as an invitation for correction and edification, only secondarily as a counterargument to your claims.
It is important to realize that Orgel is a leader of one faction (I will resist the temptation to write “sect”) and he is critiquing the ideas of a different faction. Since I happen to subscribe to the ideas of the second faction, I may not be perfectly fair to Orgel here.
Orgel does not calculate probabilities in part because the ideas he is critiquing are not specific enough to permit such a calculation. Furthermore, and this is something you would need some background to appreciate, the issue here isn’t a question of a fluke coming together somewhere here on earth of the right ingredients. It is more a matter of a fluke coming together of laws of chemistry. Orgel is saying that he doubts that the cycle idea would work anywhere in this universe—it would take a suspiciously fine-tuned universe to let all those reactions work together like that. It is a reasonable argument—particularly coming from someone whose chemical intuition is as good as Orgel’s.
I think Orgel is pretty much right. The reductive citric acid cycle is a cute idea as the core of a metabolism-first theory, but it is probably too big and complicated a cycle to be realistic as the first cycle. Personally, I think that something simpler, using CO or HCN as the carbon source has a better chance of success. But until we come up with something specific and testable, the “metabolism first” faction maybe deserves Orgel’s scorn. The annoying thing is that our best ideas are untestable because they require enormous pressures and unsafe ingredients to test them. Damned frustrating when you want to criticize the other side for producing untestable theories.
Orgel was fair to the extent that he also provided a pretty good critiqueto his own faction’s ideas at about the same time. But it is possible that Sutherland’s new ideas on RNA synthesis may revive the RNA-first viewpoint.
If you really dig watching abiogenesis research, as I do, it is an exciting time to be alive. Lots of ideas, something wrong with every one of them, but sooner or later we are bound to figure it all out.
But, isn’t the issue not only the amount of information required but also the amount of time and space that was available to work with?
To pick one scientific paper which I think summarizes what you’re talking about, this paper discusses “[...][t]he implausibility of the suggestion that complicated cycles could self-organize, and the importance of learning more about the potential of surfaces to help organize simpler cycles[...]”.
The chemistry discussed in that paper is well above my head, but I can still read it well enough to conclude that it seems to fallaciously arrive at probabilistic-sounding conclusions (i.e. “To postulate one fortuitously catalyzed reaction, perhaps catalyzed by a metal ion, might be reasonable, but to postulate a suite of them is to appeal to magic.”) without actually doing any probability calculations. It’s not enough to point out that the processes required to bootstrap a citric acid cycle are unlikely; how unlikely are they compared to the number of opportunities?
Am I missing something important? The above is my current understanding of the situation which I recognize to be low-level, and I present it primarily as an invitation for correction and edification, only secondarily as a counterargument to your claims.
It is important to realize that Orgel is a leader of one faction (I will resist the temptation to write “sect”) and he is critiquing the ideas of a different faction. Since I happen to subscribe to the ideas of the second faction, I may not be perfectly fair to Orgel here.
Orgel does not calculate probabilities in part because the ideas he is critiquing are not specific enough to permit such a calculation. Furthermore, and this is something you would need some background to appreciate, the issue here isn’t a question of a fluke coming together somewhere here on earth of the right ingredients. It is more a matter of a fluke coming together of laws of chemistry. Orgel is saying that he doubts that the cycle idea would work anywhere in this universe—it would take a suspiciously fine-tuned universe to let all those reactions work together like that. It is a reasonable argument—particularly coming from someone whose chemical intuition is as good as Orgel’s.
I think Orgel is pretty much right. The reductive citric acid cycle is a cute idea as the core of a metabolism-first theory, but it is probably too big and complicated a cycle to be realistic as the first cycle. Personally, I think that something simpler, using CO or HCN as the carbon source has a better chance of success. But until we come up with something specific and testable, the “metabolism first” faction maybe deserves Orgel’s scorn. The annoying thing is that our best ideas are untestable because they require enormous pressures and unsafe ingredients to test them. Damned frustrating when you want to criticize the other side for producing untestable theories.
Orgel was fair to the extent that he also provided a pretty good critiqueto his own faction’s ideas at about the same time. But it is possible that Sutherland’s new ideas on RNA synthesis may revive the RNA-first viewpoint.
If you really dig watching abiogenesis research, as I do, it is an exciting time to be alive. Lots of ideas, something wrong with every one of them, but sooner or later we are bound to figure it all out.