A formal statement of Intelligent Deisgn

Lots of assumptions you are passing off as facts,

Lots of facts you are passing off as assumptions

You do tend to think that with things that are only true by definition.

Steohen said it best above.

These aren't my personal thoughts and opinions. But empirically established, observational facts confirmed by thousands of scientists around the world (and over the past couple hundred years) who've documented the nature of the fossil record.

And including observations long before Darwin without making evolutionary old age "assumptions"

It's not enough to convince me. You need to convince those thousands of scientists.

Vertically stacked reefs throughout the fossil record don't make sense for a flood model that predicts all reefs at the bottom, nor do they suppport the view that all life was created around the same time

Meanwhile: abiogenesis has its own set of intractable problems like the Eigen Paradox here and here

*We must be willing to fairly consider the weaknesses in our own views and the strengths in opposing views, and not just the strengths in our own views and weaknesses in opposing views

As a matter of interest how do Biologists deal with the so-called 'Eigen Paradox' in 2023?

After all, it's now some 50 years after he first stated it I think?

Please start by reviewing my Origin of Life Paradoxes post for the big picture:

The Asphalt Paradox

The Water Paradox

The Information-Need Paradox

The Single Biopolymer Paradox

The Probability Paradox

To this I'm adding the following summary (that was not part of the origin OP)

And of particular importance here are the Single Biopolymer Paradox & Probability Paradox

Alright, back to Eigen's Paradox that large genomes are needed to code for error repair enzymes, but large genomes cannot exist without error repair enzymes because of mutation accumulation. The original study determined that ~100 nucleotides was the error threshold for DNA (anything larger would accumulate too many errors), but much greater >> 100 nucleotides is needed to code for an repair enzyme.

In 2005, an innovative "proof of concept" experiment was published that showed the error threshold for RNA is much more relaxed than DNA, and that RNA ribozymes can be as long as 7,000 nucleotides before the error threshold is reached--before mutation error destroy the RNA catalytic activity.

So, that is "progress," but it's only progress on paper.

1. There is no known way to prebiotically assemble an RNA anywhere close to that long 7,000. We have trouble assembling RNA chains longer than 10-20 nucleotides! It's not just the order but the three dimensional folding. The longer the chain, the more kinks and catastrophic misfolds (even when there are 0 mutations in the chain; these kinks and misfolds have nothing to do with mutations!)

2. The solution shows up to 7,000 before mutations destroy *catalytic* activity. But if you see from the Probability Paradox, catalytic activity in itself is not sufficient and most catalytic activity would be destructive. Also, from the Single Biopolymer Paradox you'll notice that RNA (as an informational molecule) to code for repair enzymes needs to be linear, while RNA with catalytic ability needs to be folded like this. See, the hairpin loop below? That is an RNA catalytic site (and a single hairpin is usually insufficient)

So the error threshold calculation is based on the *catalytic* function of an RNA and the number of errors that can be accumulated and rate of accumulation before that hairpin shape is destroyed thus destroying catalytic function.

But that tells us nothing of the original paradox, which is not just errors in general that destroy the DNA/RNA structure, but also how many errors can be accumulated before the genetic instructions to make the *repair enzyme* are compromised? Too many errors and you end up with a nonfunctional repair enzyme. The study didnt address this question.

3. As you see from the Single Biopolymer Paradox, the requirements for informational molecules (DNA/RNA) & catalytic molecules (RNA ribozymes/protein enzymes) are complete opposites. The former needs to be linear, the latter folded (to make catalytic hairpins and such).

The "RNA World" was supposed to solve the chicken egg paradox of which came first proteins or DNA when it was discovered that RNA can do informational and catalytic roles. BUT it can't do it at the same time. It can't be simultaneously folded (for catalytic) and not-folded (for informational to make repair enzymes) at the same time.

4. So, the hard reality is that we would need at least two separate RNA strands to spontaneously form (at the same time and in the same microliter volume location of the universe!): an *unfolded* RNA template strand to code for our repair enzymes (with an unknown error threshold), AND a second *folded* RNA replicating strand (with relaxed error threshold) with catalytic ability to transcribe the RNA template strand to make our repair enzymes-- we need at least these 2 RNA chains to somehow spontaneously assemble from 100s of (somehow activated) nucleotides (when we only have mechanisms for assembling 10-20 nucleotides, but assuming that problem was somehow solved..). Then we of course need all this in an enclosed system and then there's the problem of activated amino acids and nucleotides (which don't exist in nature) to provide the building blocks to make more RNAs and to build our repair enzymes (an RNA replicator isn't much use without a high concentration of building blocks for it to assemble together). And on and on and on and on.... problems compounded galore.

So, it's an ingenious "solution" on paper that doesn't ultimately work in harsh reality of nature

Interesting but to repeat my question, how do Biologists deal with the so-called 'Eigen Paradox' today in the context of OOL research?

I'm not understanding the question (I thought I answered your question). Technically, the biologists don't deal with it at all, because this is more the domain of the experimental chemist. And how do they deal with it? Well, they don't. There's no real solution at the present time.

Understood and that answers my question in full.

If you say it was directed, you have introduced design.

Natural selection as described is the weeding out of that which cannot survive in favor of that which can, it does not direct alterations in forms and features.

No, not even loosely, natural selection only occurs after a change has taken place, it acts not before a change to direct a necessary mutation in the right time and place. This is a critical piece, to direct mutations towards some end requires planning. No thought-out mutation can ever happen in a mindlessly guided process, only reactions after they are done.

I have worked in R&D for 20 years, random mutation in any code is detrimental, and building a complex system with information processing capabilities does not happen through random chance from scratch in the digital world or biological. We see what is required as we do it digitally so we have something to compare the processes to. What is being talked about we can relate to this, for us time is required along with painstaking research and development, and you think under a rock without a guiding hand, mindlessness, uncaring chance can do it?

Before a mutation is where direction can occur not after, after there are only reactions. I'm not here to read your mind if you have something to say, say it. How does natural selection take life and improve it by not being able to direct a mutation into the right spot at the right time?

If you break something too early in the process it can have very bad consequences downstream in the execution of the genetic code, mutations late in the process will not change the form or function that has been already established. Making changes in established code is almost as difficult if not more so than abiogenesis is at the beginning. Life is on a razor's edge if something goes wrong in any place where it is impossible to recover from its over, through a life-weakening change or death.

You are thinking of these as if it’s a video game where we get to keep just good ones, and the bad will simply fall off without leaving any nasty consequences. An accumulation of mutations will have a negative impact like it or not. Denial is not a solution for the issues that arise.

Unless you have a mechanism that gets rid of them you can not make that claim. All changes due to mutation would be there until a cause gets rid of them. If there is nothing that can differentiate a good and bad mutation going forward all of them will, each doing damage or something positive. Since the number of mutations that take place are detrimental the mutations would endanger more life than advance them. Natural selection is a wait and see what will happen approach not a I like this not that process.

Yes, they all die off that have all of the changes through mutation intact, the good and bad, and if what you were claiming were true every single one of them would in time die off. Nothing about the natural section suggests keeping only the good, separating them from the bad, and moving forward, and since the vast majority of mutations carry with them a negative effect on systems doing very specified work it would always be a matter of time. It is an unworkable process doing things that logically cannot be done, are you suggesting something more magical is taking place where a select few only get only good mutations? If not they all accumulate and in the end would kill off everything.

I am willing to explore any idea, but saying only the good ones go forward without explanation on the bad ones that show up in greater numbers, is not addressing the problems. It’s acting as if there isn’t any bad ones when we know that is not true.

• I work with very complex systems and processes for a living, from next generation CPU, and now cell tower radios. Analyzing data and the flow in the process so that we know what took place when is a very big deal. You are going to have a difficult time showing how an after a mutation occurred filter (natural selection) can now in the proper time and placement direct the next future mutations that have not occurred yet.

Telling me I'm deficient if I don't buy what you selling isn't a selling point, making a logical point using sound reasoning should do it.

Better why I don’t share his views anymore than I do yours on many things.