The Drake* Equation N = Ns * Nfp * Nfl * Nfi * Nft * Nfd where N >= 1.0

[ctyankee]

I don't know it this qualifies as a theory of the universe as
mentioned in the challenge, but I can say with a high degree of
confidence that N > 1.0, because N = 1.0 requires a leap of faith that
defies credible logic.

I don't know (or care) if this is the actual Drake equation, it
doesn't matter. If we can trust out observations, then the fractional
coefficients require no leap of faith, no stretch of the imagination
to satisfy N >= 1.0

What does this have to do with quarantine? Very little, if the
quarantined zone is large enough.

What the seeker is asking for is poorly defined. As there was no
limit specified on the limits of initial complexity. Nor was a
restriction places on the lower limit of the efficiency of the
iterative process.

Regardless of whether the Earth evolved life spontaneously, or was
seeded with DNA/RNA, the chiral nature of certain molecules and the
fact that every life-form on Earth can be eaten by some other life-
form leads one to conclude that a single point of origin was the
initial ancestor of all life on Earth.

So given sufficient time and materials, the evolution of RNA/DNA from
semi-organic predecessors, is not difficult to realize. In the 1950's
the synthesis of complex organic molecules from CO2, NH3, H2O, H2S,
PH3, and other inorganic species was demonstrated. Once those amino
acids are allowed to react the eventual evolution of a self
replicating molecule aka DNA is just a matter of time. The only
consideration is that the ratio of failures must be allowed to grow
without limit. It seems reasonable to me that trillions of tons of
amino acids were synthesized and degraded before the 1st molecule of
DNA evolved from the goo. It also seems likely that many DNA strands
were degraded before that were able to replicate, and those 'species'
were simply lost to antiquity.

-- ctyankee

[gehrab]

The idea that DNA is an inevitable by-product of combining amino acids
is not, as far as I can tell, demonstrated either in the laboratory or
theoretically. Why only four nucleotides? Why is it bounded by sugars
and phosphates? Why ester bonds?

I do not believe that it is at all inevitable that a thousand+ atomic
molecule would form under any circumstances at random. The number of
happy accidents leading to DNA was probably truly staggering.

Now, there is a relation between the sugars holding the DNA together
and the nucleosides that go into the synthesis of a nucleotide, but
what that has to do with amino acids is unclear.

I do not see the inevitability of DNA.

George

[ctyankee]

That's quite a statement of denial!

When you were a child and first learned to count to 100, when did you
understand that counting to 1,000,000 was possible although
impractical?

There isn't enough space, time, and motivation here for me to teach
organic chemistry & molecular biology, but I can suggest you enroll in
a pre-med degree program... It'll all be clear in 4 years or so.

Regarding the number of "happy accidents". When viewed from a goal
perspective, the odds seem poor, but when viewed from combinatorics,
the outcome is simply one in a sea of possibilities; the sum of which
is 1.0 or certainty! Prior to the middle 1900's the notion that amino
acids could be produced from inorganic gasses was non-existent. That
globe with gasses & wires sure did upset that misconception.

DNA, and all the precursors are nothing if not inevitable; as far as
we can tell it did take 750 million years though.

[George Hrabovsky]

While it seems possible that DNA came from RNA, to this day no one knows
where RNA came from. If you know of a direct link between a soup of an
incomplete collection of organic monomers (including Glycine, alpha-Alanine,
and beta-Alanine) and the initial development of RNA that would be something
to get excited about.

As to your comment about the inevitability of DNA and its precursors, you go
ahead and place these in a prebiotic planet and see how it takes to get DNA,
if it occurs at all. I think you will find that there is no guarantee that
DNA will combine from spare parts.

As to spending four years to make it all clear, I have been at this for more
than thirty and the exciting part is that I have more questions now than
when everything seemed so clear twenty six years ago...

[ctyankee]

Hey George,

RE: "...where RNA came from." You're kidding again, right? RNA,
exists. Q.E.D. The position you're advocating seems to be heavily
faith based, because of the deep-time requirements I mentioned.

RE: "... there is no guarantee that DNA will..." You're absolutely
correct! There was no guarantee, only a 'high' probability. How
close to 1.0 we cannot say. In fact the probability is so far from
1.0 that we should call it almost ZERO! But we can't argue that it's
zero, otherwise we wouldn't be here. No, the probability is rather
low (numerically), but there is another theorem; "Whatever isn't
forbidden is mandatory." From which we can conclude that since
nothing forbids the occurrence of DNA, it should eventually occur by
pure chance!

Our best guess is the Earth formed 4.5 B years ago, and life
appeared 3.8 B years ago or ~ 700 Million later. What was happening
for all that time? Molecules were interacting in the presence of
mineral catalysts & metals, UV & visible light, ionizing & non-
ionizing radiation, intense & varying pressure, temperatures from
infernal to frigid.

No one can say how many 'errors' were made; how many dead-ends
sequestered interesting intermediate molecules... What did happen is
that some peptide chain formed, and a corresponding messenger enzyme
was present, and this goo autocatylically spread. Eventually, an
island of stability was reached, a sufficiently complex molecule bred
true, and created enough supplemental compounds & enzymes to assure
there was a minimum critical concentration of raw materials to
replicate before it broke down. Maybe not the first molecule to be
called alive, but certainly the first species to survive!

There can be no other definition of life that can be verified or
falsified. The theologists require something mysterious, something
unknowable to come before. The scientist is content to remain
ignorant of the event, acknowledging it occurred within an uncountable
yet finite bounding set of events. The actual numbers are quite
irrelevant. Large masses (planets) and long times (a billion years
give or take) are just coefficients in the equation. Nowhere is there
a term that reads "Here a miracle occurs", it's just not necessary,
nor can it be defended.

Somewhere in another thread, I and others have challenged the
veracity or this challenge. It may be an elaborate attempt to
disprove evolution through nefarious rhetorical techniques, but it
can't. Nor can it prove the existence of creation by failing to
provide a working proof of evolution. So what is the real agenda?
Perhaps the OP will share.

Regards,
-- or --
Peace-love-and-granola,

--cty

[George Hrabovsky]

The problem is a common misconception. We are not asking what did happen, we
are asking how likely is it to happen again. Alternately, givien the initial
condition what is the likelihood that it will happen. Just because something
happened once, does not mean that it is either inevitable or that it will
ever happen again. The fact is we do not know the evolutionary path of RNA,
so we do not know how DNA came into existence. Without knowing that we
cannot evaluate the likelihood of RNA coming into existence, from a
statistical point of view. The fact that it did happen does not make the
probability that it can happen P=1.

As for the veracity of the challenge, I must admit that I do not fully
understand everything that is being requested. I do not yet understand how
to approach it.

[ctyankee]

Fundamentally, the Drake equation is the collection of coefficients
that define the the total probability of what is being sought.
However there is *NO POSSIBLE WAY* to predict what those coefficients
are! That's why it's expressed it as an inequality.

We have a single instance so we know N is at least 1.0. Inferring
that N >= 1.0 only requires that any of the coefficients be slightly
larger that their currently _established_ yet unknown values.

The only 'proof' I can try to convey is by asking the reader to assume
values for the various terms one at a time, and look for reasons that
would disallow the result that we know occurred from the the sample
case Earth = N(1). Until we actually observe another biosphere, we
cannot establish any number of coefficients precisely, *except* we can
say that none of them are = 0.0 (else we'd not be here).

Let me repeat; the fact that we are here (RNA/DNA evolved) does not
mean the probability of any of the terms is 1.0. It does mean the
product of the probabilities > 0.0, and given the huge number of
attempts, that product of the number of tries x probability is at
least 1.0... It takes a greater leap of faith to believe that in all
the universe we are alone, than to simply accept that N > 1.0 no
matter how small the probability.

This is where the challenge fails. Either the seeker has to accept
logical *guesses* (which is the basis for all engineering, chemistry,
biology, etc.) or a new mathematical proof for 1 equation with 2
unknowns. Because short of compressing time 700 million years into an
afternoon, they seem to want to exclude any simulation as being
'contaminated' or improperly quarantined.

[bkl...@gmail.com]

"the fact that we are here (RNA/DNA evolved)" -- Do you mean that
nucleotides came from something prior and simpler? Or do you mean that
changes in nucleotide sequences produced the genetic programs for
people? Either way includes an overlooked, unwarranted assumption.
Without the big bang, we only know that nucleotides and genetic
programs exist, not that they came from anything else. This is a
crucial logical point.

> ...
>
> read more »

[ctyankee]

Of course 'nucleotides' came from simpler components; amino acids.
Here's a concept for you... there is *NO* program for *ANY* living
organism... There are 'programs' for sugars, starches, proteins,
enzymes, fats, lipids, etc... all the way up to RNA/DNA... But that's
where the 'programming' sort'a reaches an end. The nucleic acids can
replicate!

Everything else is an adaptation that helped certain sequences
replicate more effectively in relationship to other sequences that
they were/are in competition with. Early on, 3.8B years ago, the
competition was for energy (heat, light) and certain chemical species
(H2S, NH3, CH4, PH3, Na, K, etc..) Could the genome for blue eyes and
a Roman nose been cobbled together by chance 3 billion years ago?
Sure, but it would only get brought forward for so long if it conveyed
no negative advantage. Every mutation either was positive toward
survival, neutral, or benign.

So, the logic of the premise that these things came form anything is
moot. Things happen by chance, they either perpetuate or not. There
is no value judgment, just paths along the lines of entropy. The
universe doesn't care. We exist we came from simpler things. The set
of options is a *FINITE* number! Incomprehensibly large, but still
finite.

> ...
>
> read more »