Theoretical biologists and Chemotons

[Glenn]

"The basic assumption of the model is that life should fundamentally and essentially have three properties: metabolism, self-replication, and a bilipid membrane.[3] The metabolic and replication functions together form an autocatalytic subsystem necessary for the basic functions of life, and a membrane encloses this subsystem to separate it from the surrounding environment. Therefore, any system having such properties may be regarded as alive, and it will be subjected to natural selection and contain a self-sustaining cellular information. Some consider this model a significant contribution to origin of life as it provides a philosophy of evolutionary units.[4]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemoton

[4]:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17624859/

This is science?

[RonO]

It is a theoretical construct, not a scientific theory. "Theoretical"
as in hypothetical. Someone proposed 3 essential ingredients to have
self replicating lifeforms, but it has yet to be demonstrated that the
hypothetical construct means much in terms of how life began. Some
think that it is a place to start, but they have yet to demonstrate that
it is the correct place to start. No one claims to have a scientific
theory as to how life began, so you can consider it to be science in
progress as people play with it to see if it amounts to anything. It is
not as advanced as something like string theory that isn't yet a
scientific theory either.

It is where the ID perps should be with IDiocy, but the ID perps figured
out that they never wanted to verify their hypothetical constructs, they
only needed something for the rubes to lie to themselves about. Just
think that the last thing that the majority of IDiots want to see is
Behe verifying that his designer fiddled with bacterial proteins over a
billion years ago, and Behe can tell them what the starting proteins
were like and how the designer changed the existing proteins with Behes
desired 3 neutral mutations, so that they could produce a new function
and work in the flagellum. The majority of IDiots are YEC and
anit-evolution. They do not want to know how the designer evolved the
flagellum over a billion years ago, from preexisting parts.

At this time Chemoton is speculation.

My speculation is that it isn't the correct place to start. The first
self replicating molecules were likely not doing it inside a lipid
bilayer. They could have been attached to some type of catalytic
mineral surface or in fine sediments with the needed minerals in the
sedimentary sludge. My guess is that lipids were one of the alternative
chemical reactions that self replicators started to do. The early self
replicators wouldn't have just self replicated, but like existing
protein or RNA strands they themselves would have other catalytic
functions. Once you got a self replicating molecule that made lipids,
lipids would increase in concentration around these self replicators and
would eventually form the lipid bilayer bubbles. This could allow the
lipid making self replicators to escape the mineral surface or fine
sedimentary sludge and have better access to materials it needed to self
replicate. It would be making more of itself and more lipids, as you
know these lipid membranes are unstable and will break apart and form
more lipid bubbles with the self replicators in them.

If the self replication is not perfect, more self replicators will
evolve and they will have other catalytic properties.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 1:55:13 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 10/3/2021 2:33 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > "The basic assumption of the model is that life should fundamentally and essentially have three properties: metabolism, self-replication, and a bilipid membrane.[3] The metabolic and replication functions together form an autocatalytic subsystem necessary for the basic functions of life, and a membrane encloses this subsystem to separate it from the surrounding environment. Therefore, any system having such properties may be regarded as alive, and it will be subjected to natural selection and contain a self-sustaining cellular information. Some consider this model a significant contribution to origin of life as it provides a philosophy of evolutionary units.[4]"
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemoton
> >
> > [4]:
> > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17624859/
> >
> > This is science?
> >
> It is a theoretical construct, not a scientific theory. "Theoretical"
> as in hypothetical. Someone proposed 3 essential ingredients to have
> self replicating lifeforms, but it has yet to be demonstrated that the
> hypothetical construct means much in terms of how life began. Some
> think that it is a place to start, but they have yet to demonstrate that
> it is the correct place to start. No one claims to have a scientific
> theory as to how life began, so you can consider it to be science in
> progress as people play with it to see if it amounts to anything. It is
> not as advanced as something like string theory that isn't yet a
> scientific theory either.
>

So when you claimed that first life lacked a membrane, you were waxing theoretical?

[Glenn]

Hmm.

"Mathematical and theoretical biology or, biomathematics, is a branch of biology which employs theoretical analysis, mathematical models and abstractions of the living organisms to investigate the principles that govern the structure, development and behavior of the systems, as opposed to experimental biology which deals with the conduction of experiments to prove and validate the scientific theories"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_and_theoretical_biology#Complex_systems_biology

"Areas of Research", below includes

Abstract relational biology

Algebraic biology

Complex systems biology

Evolutionary biology

Molecular set theory

Organizational biology

Then there's a separate section:

Model example: the cell cycle

So this is all "hypothetical". Got it.

[RonO]

As the part that you snipped and ran from stated it is speculation. Why
snip and run in denial for what you can't deal with?

REPOST:

It is a theoretical construct, not a scientific theory. "Theoretical"
as in hypothetical. Someone proposed 3 essential ingredients to have
self replicating lifeforms, but it has yet to be demonstrated that the
hypothetical construct means much in terms of how life began. Some
think that it is a place to start, but they have yet to demonstrate that
it is the correct place to start. No one claims to have a scientific
theory as to how life began, so you can consider it to be science in
progress as people play with it to see if it amounts to anything. It is
not as advanced as something like string theory that isn't yet a
scientific theory either.

END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

How can anyone lie to themselves to this extent? Do you have some
excuse or is it the only thing that you can think of to do?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

You didn't even answer the simple question. What did I lie about?

[RonO]

"So this is all "hypothetical". Got it." Is an obvious lie about what
you should have understood, but you had to snip and run in denial and
remain willfully ignorant of what science actually is. Why even try to
lie about what evolutionary biology is? You know that the scientific
theory of biological evolution exists as part of evolutionary biology,
and that there are still hypotheses that are being tested that could
improve our understanding of nature.

What kind of science are the ID perps doing? Why is it science so bad
that most scientists don't even consider it to be science?

Why did you have to lie about what you should have learned?

REPOST:

> This is science?
>

It is a theoretical construct, not a scientific theory. "Theoretical"
as in hypothetical. Someone proposed 3 essential ingredients to have
self replicating lifeforms, but it has yet to be demonstrated that the
hypothetical construct means much in terms of how life began. Some
think that it is a place to start, but they have yet to demonstrate that
it is the correct place to start. No one claims to have a scientific
theory as to how life began, so you can consider it to be science in
progress as people play with it to see if it amounts to anything. It is
not as advanced as something like string theory that isn't yet a
scientific theory either.

END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 12:33:04 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

Do you think it isn't science? If so, on what basis?

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Glenn]

So here you include lets see, one, two,three,four,five. Five insults.

[RonO]

They are what you did and are doing. They may be insulting, but only
because what you are doing is so bad. If you hadn't done them, they
would not apply to you.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn Sheldon]

If you weren't seriously delusional you would probably wish you hadn't wrote the above, as it sounds like you're crazy.

Your first response to my initial post used the word "hypothetical" three times to explain "theoretical". So when I say "got it" after citing a source that identifies what part of science is referred to as "theoretical", you say it is an obvious lie. I'm just pissing in the wind here, aren't I, Ron.

[Glenn Sheldon]

Just so we are clear about lying about what evolutionary biology is, from the Wiki site provided above:

"Ecology and evolutionary biology have traditionally been the dominant fields of mathematical biology.
Evolutionary biology has been the subject of extensive mathematical theorizing."

[Glenn]

On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 2:25:13 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 10/3/2021 4:03 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 1:55:13 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 10/3/2021 2:33 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >>> "The basic assumption of the model is that life should fundamentally and essentially have three properties: metabolism, self-replication, and a bilipid membrane.[3] The metabolic and replication functions together form an autocatalytic subsystem necessary for the basic functions of life, and a membrane encloses this subsystem to separate it from the surrounding environment. Therefore, any system having such properties may be regarded as alive, and it will be subjected to natural selection and contain a self-sustaining cellular information. Some consider this model a significant contribution to origin of life as it provides a philosophy of evolutionary units.[4]"
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemoton
> >>>
> >>> [4]:
> >>> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17624859/
> >>>
> >>> This is science?
> >>>
> >> It is a theoretical construct, not a scientific theory. "Theoretical"
> >> as in hypothetical. Someone proposed 3 essential ingredients to have
> >> self replicating lifeforms, but it has yet to be demonstrated that the
> >> hypothetical construct means much in terms of how life began. Some
> >> think that it is a place to start, but they have yet to demonstrate that
> >> it is the correct place to start. No one claims to have a scientific
> >> theory as to how life began, so you can consider it to be science in
> >> progress as people play with it to see if it amounts to anything. It is
> >> not as advanced as something like string theory that isn't yet a
> >> scientific theory either.
> >>
> > So when you claimed that first life lacked a membrane, you were waxing theoretical?
> >
> As the part that you snipped and ran from stated it is speculation. Why
> snip and run in denial for what you can't deal with?

Sorry, that won't fly. Some time ago in another thread you *claimed* that first life lacked a membrane.
And you said nothing about that being pure speculation. You argued against the idea that
any living thing must be protected by a complicated outer membrane, to let the good stuff in and the bad stuff out.
I was asking whether you were "speculating" then, not now. As you say, I snipped that part, so clearly I was not
referring to that. Sounds like you're the one that is in denial of what you can't deal with.

Just admit to yourself that you make claims as if they were factual, but you really know they are speculations.

Speculations are like assholes, everyone has got one. You consistently create an image of yourself as an authority and a source for learning, yet
do not support your speculations with anything other than more speculation. The question of whether first life required a lipid bilayer of some complexity is a serious one. Poo-pooing it out of existence won't cut it, which is what you did in another thread. In reality, you just do a lot of bullshitting. You probably remembered about what you claimed a while back, and adjusted the "fact" to "speculation". If this thread accomplishes anything else, it would have been worth it to hear that.
>

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2021-10-03 20:54:13 +0000, RonO said:

> On 10/3/2021 2:33 PM, Glenn wrote:
>> "The basic assumption of the model is that life should fundamentally
>> and essentially have three properties: metabolism, self-replication,
>> and a bilipid membrane.[3] The metabolic and replication functions
>> together form an autocatalytic subsystem necessary for the basic
>> functions of life, and a membrane encloses this subsystem to separate
>> it from the surrounding environment. Therefore, any system having such
>> properties may be regarded as alive, and it will be subjected to
>> natural selection and contain a self-sustaining cellular information.
>> Some consider this model a significant contribution to origin of life
>> as it provides a philosophy of evolutionary units.[4]"
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemoton

Just a quick comment on this article in which ref. 1 starts

Marshall, Michael (14 December 2020). "He may have found the key to the
origins of life. So why have so few heard of him?

The answer is so simple it's hardly worth asking the question. If you
publish nearly all your work in Hungarian you can't be surprised if
hardly anyone reads it. One of the few who did was Tibot Gánti's
student Eörs Szathmáry, who took the trouble to translate the important
bits into English, accmpanied by his own and James Griesemer's very
valuable comments.

I get the impression that the Wikipedia article has not been seriously
updated in the past ten years. Maybe I should do something about that.

I should be surprised if Glenn were among the few who could understand
the original Hungarian text.

Along with all the other efforts to define early life. They're all
we've got [A. Cornish-Bowden & M. L. Cárdenas (2020) "Contrasting
Theories of Life: Historical Context, Current Thories. In Search of an
Ideal Theory" BioSystems 188, 104063
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2019.104063]

>
> My speculation is that it isn't the correct place to start. The first
> self replicating molecules were likely not doing it inside a lipid
> bilayer. They could have been attached to some type of catalytic
> mineral surface or in fine sediments with the needed minerals in the
> sedimentary sludge.

I agree, but I think Gánti's point was that some sort of enclosure (not
necessarily a lipid micelle) was necessary. I favour a natural mineral
barrier, as suggested by Mike Russell and colleagues (2014) ["The drive
to life on wet and icy worlds" Astrobiology 14(4):308–343.
https://doi.org/10.1089/ast.2013.1110], but the essential point is that
_we don't know_. Nonetheless, it's worth noting that lipid micelles can
form under plausible predbiotic conditions [G. Piedrafita et al. (2012)
"Viability conditions for a compartmentalized protometabolic system: a
semi-empirical approach" PLoS ONE 7, e39480
doi10.1371/journal.pone.0039480]

> My guess is that lipids were one of the alternative chemical
> reactions that self replicators started to do. The early self
> replicators wouldn't have just self replicated, but like existing
> protein or RNA strands they themselves would have other catalytic
> functions. Once you got a self replicating molecule that made lipids,
> lipids would increase in concentration around these self replicators
> and would eventually form the lipid bilayer bubbles. This could allow
> the lipid making self replicators to escape the mineral surface or fine
> sedimentary sludge and have better access to materials it needed to
> self replicate. It would be making more of itself and more lipids, as
> you know these lipid membranes are unstable and will break apart and
> form more lipid bubbles with the self replicators in them.
>
> If the self replication is not perfect, more self replicators will
> evolve and they will have other catalytic properties.

As I can't figure out what point Glenn thinks he is making I refrain
from commenting on his posts.


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[RonO]

Just imagine how willfully ignorant you had to be in order to post what
you did in this thread. You have posted to TO for, probably, over 20
years, and you do not understand how science works. Science is a
process. It is the best way that we know of to understand nature. Look
how you have ignored what science is in order to post what you have
posted. One of the processes is to look at nature, make some
observations and then create testable hypotheses to account for the
observations. Science that amounts to anything progresses through the
testing phase and the hypothesis is rejected or verified. Verification
leads to using that to better understand nature. How much mathematical
and theoretical biology has been verified and is being used to
understand biological evolution, let alone the rest of nature?

You can't compare real science to IDiot science. IDiocy never got past
the making up junk phase, and never wanted to enter the testing phase.
IDiots never wanted to test and verify their junk. Just imagine how
great it would be if Behe verified that the flagellum was his type of IC
and he found the 3 neutral mutations that he claims might exist to have
evolved the flagellum from preexisting parts over a billion years ago.
The majority of IDiots would deny those results. Not only that, but
once Behe finds such a thing he would have to figure out some way to
claim that his designer was responsible, when it obviously could have
just happened. There is no law against having 3 neutral mutations
creating a new function. The probability is low and we have never found
sucn an example at this time, but if it happens it happens.

Real science isn't like IDiot science, and if you learn something about
science instead of remaining willfully ignorant, you will understand why
it was stupid to post what you did in this thread.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Why lie about something this stupid. All you have to do is go to the
material that you snipped out and see for yourself.

QUOTE:

At this time Chemoton is speculation.

My speculation is that it isn't the correct place to start. The first
self replicating molecules were likely not doing it inside a lipid bilayer.

END QUOTE:

What do you think I meant by "My speculation"?

>
> Just admit to yourself that you make claims as if they were factual, but you really know they are speculations.
>
> Speculations are like assholes, everyone has got one. You consistently create an image of yourself as an authority and a source for learning, yet
> do not support your speculations with anything other than more speculation. The question of whether first life required a lipid bilayer of some complexity is a serious one. Poo-pooing it out of existence won't cut it, which is what you did in another thread. In reality, you just do a lot of bullshitting. You probably remembered about what you claimed a while back, and adjusted the "fact" to "speculation". If this thread accomplishes anything else, it would have been worth it to hear that.
>>
>

Why post this junk just to lie to yourself about what was posted?

REPOST:

> This is science?
>

It is a theoretical construct, not a scientific theory. "Theoretical"
as in hypothetical. Someone proposed 3 essential ingredients to have
self replicating lifeforms, but it has yet to be demonstrated that the
hypothetical construct means much in terms of how life began. Some
think that it is a place to start, but they have yet to demonstrate that
it is the correct place to start. No one claims to have a scientific
theory as to how life began, so you can consider it to be science in
progress as people play with it to see if it amounts to anything. It is
not as advanced as something like string theory that isn't yet a
scientific theory either.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I have now done it. I don't suppose it will lead to any intelligent
comments from Glenn, but who knows. Intelligent comments from others
will be welcome.

[jillery]

Good job. Thank you for doing so.

>I don't suppose it will lead to any intelligent
>comments from Glenn, but who knows.

Glenn's idea of an intelligent comment is "Mary had a little lamb".

Also, Glenn and other pseudoskeptics don't understand that premises,
especially premises about origins, are necessarily speculative, in the
sense they are typically unproven and occasionally unprovable. That
doesn't make premises, or hypotheses based on them, unscientific.

>Intelligent comments from others will be welcome.

IIRC Gánti's three properties of life, metabolism, self-replication,
and a bilipid membrane (to provide an internal space), evoke a
description of life I learned in middle school way back in 1963. I
recall it only because it was part of a rather lively classroom
discussion. If so, that suggests others described something similar
to his chemoton model long before he did.

[Glenn]

That's your idea of an intelligent comment.

>
> Also, Glenn and other pseudoskeptics don't understand that premises,
> especially premises about origins, are necessarily speculative, in the
> sense they are typically unproven and occasionally unprovable. That
> doesn't make premises, or hypotheses based on them, unscientific.

Total bullshit. Of course I and most others understand what speculation means.

Nor have I *ever* regarded speculative comments to be unscientific. And I bet you are very well aware of that.

What I do and have objected to, many many times, is when speculation is characterized or assumed to be evidence, observation or fact.
And this is exactly what some of those you refer to as "pseudoskeptics" object to, such as James Tour.

That happens if not almost every day here, if not every day. You just did.

Are you speculating when you claim I "do not understand" above? Do you identify your claim as a "speculation" or an "hypothesis"?
If so, does that make your claim "scientific"?

[jillery]

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 10:14:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

*************************************
Subject: Re: Open Access article on the history of creationism and
intelligent design
Message-ID: <2454ef23-24c9-4305...@googlegroups.com>
On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 10:26:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>> > You ignore what you responded to with "bullshit".
>> How is it possible to respond to something, yet ignored it?
>
>Mary had a little lamb.
**************************************

>> Also, Glenn and other pseudoskeptics don't understand that premises,
>> especially premises about origins, are necessarily speculative, in the
>> sense they are typically unproven and occasionally unprovable. That
>> doesn't make premises, or hypotheses based on them, unscientific.
>
>Total bullshit. Of course I and most others understand what speculation means.
>
>Nor have I *ever* regarded speculative comments to be unscientific. And I bet you are very well aware of that.

***********************************
Subject: Re: Trasducing
Message-ID: <03ed0791-12d0-4519...@googlegroups.com>
On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 08:50:25 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>So you can't distinguish between a scientific hypothesis and speculation. What's new?
***********************************

>What I do and have objected to, many many times, is when speculation is characterized or assumed to be evidence, observation or fact.
>And this is exactly what some of those you refer to as "pseudoskeptics" object to, such as James Tour.

Are you trying to say I label James Tour a pseudoskeptic? If so, you
are correct about that. However, I don't label Tour a pseudoskeptic
because he thinks others conflate speculations with evidence,
observations, or facts. Instead, I label Tour a pseudoskeptic because
his shtick is to talk about the origins of life, asserts without
evidence that it's impossible, and then declares that disproves
evolution.

I know you know this, because I told you before, in the very posts
where I called Tour a pseudoskeptic.

>That happens if not almost every day here, if not every day. You just did.

To quote someone whom you hold in high regard, "total bullshit".

>Are you speculating when you claim I "do not understand" above? Do you identify your claim as a "speculation" or an "hypothesis"?
>If so, does that make your claim "scientific"?

Once again, hypotheses are necessarily speculative. Your comment
above is just the latest example of your failure to understand that.