[larens (OP)]

If I used your philosophy, all I could do at the beginning was to wail, "I can't proceed! I don't have the final results!"

That's a straw-man. I never said you couldn't proceed. By all means, proceed and do tests. That wasn't my contention. My contention is with you calling it "successful".

Why are you nitpicking? The taking of a test with a sufficient score meeting the goals of the test's creator is called successful. Technically the test may be an abstract set of specifications. Even those are successful if the results are consistent with what the creator wanted to measure. For instance, this morning I set out to show how the basic structure of the Solar system matches the basic structure of my model. The results, which I posted in my reply to Bored Chemist, provide significant support for the Unique Earth (and Solar System) Hypothesis. It is very improbable that a randomly chosen stellar system would fit this well.

[Kryptid]

Why are you nitpicking?

Because you are unjustifiably sure of yourself. You have an extremely specific design for a spring on an object that no one has ever seen before. And you don't know that it can give rise to life (that would have required you to have figured out the step-by-step process required to go from inanimate chemicals to a living cell). On top of that, there is no way to falsify the existence of your spring because we can't go back and look at your hypothetical satellite to see if this spring ever existed or not. If something isn't falsifiable, it isn't science.

The taking of a test with a sufficient score meeting the goals of the test's creator is called successful. Technically the test may be an abstract set of specifications. Even those are successful if the results are consistent with what the creator wanted to measure.

If you are the one taking the test, then who is the test's creator?

[larens (OP)]

Why are you nitpicking?

Because you are unjustifiably sure of yourself.

How would you know? I have posted only a small amount of my research, because people have shown so little interest in detail.

You have an extremely specific design for a spring on an object that no one has ever seen before. And you don't know that it can give rise to life (that would have required you to have figured out the step-by-step process required to go from inanimate chemicals to a living cell).

You have no skin in the game. You cannot as an outsider just set arbitrarily high demands. Science is a competition. Setting aside differences in social/political power, when one side has explained far more basic questions than any of the others they are taken to be the leading contender. Unfortunately, explaining basic questions is generally confused with winning control over the means of supporting, evaluating, and disseminating research.

On top of that, there is no way to falsify the existence of your spring because we can't go back and look at your hypothetical satellite to see if this spring ever existed or not. If something isn't falsifiable, it isn't science.

That was Popper's viewpoint, but the philosophy of science has moved on. I say that the dialog between Lakatos and Feyerabend captures the relevant question, which is, "How do you strike a balance between epistemological anarchy and setting rules for evaluating new research?"

If you are the one taking the test, then who is the test's creator?

I am, of course. I am the only one capable of making the tests. No one else has learned the details of the model well enough.

[Kryptid]

How would you know? I have posted only a small amount of my research, because people have shown so little interest in detail.

My assessment is, of course, based on what you've posted.

You have no skin in the game.

I'm not familiar with this phrase.

You cannot as an outsider just set arbitrarily high demands.

Other than yourself, who isn't an outsider?

Science is a competition. Setting aside differences in social/political power, when one side has explained far more basic questions than any of the others they are taken to be the leading contender.

Only if the explanation for the questions is correct.

That was Popper's viewpoint, but the philosophy of science has moved on.

Do you have a reference for this? What year did this switch happen?

I am, of course. I am the only one capable of making the tests. No one else has learned the details of the model well enough.

And thus you have completely invalidated your claim to having been successful. Anyone can pass a test that they wrote themself.

[Bored chemist]

Consider that the entire Solar system was set up to be a place for life to originate.

By whom?

[Bored chemist]

Why are you nitpicking? The taking of a test with a sufficient score meeting the goals of the test's creator is called successful.

If the creator of the test says "it doesn't matter that the bit about titanocene is impossible-  the idea still works" then the "goal" is set so easy as to be pointless.

[puppypower]

Water is the majority component of life on earth. Therefore, life on earth, at all scales, evolved with  water as a majority chemical component. Water was the nano-environment, which defined the physical chemical parameters, used for the natural selection of the organic and ionic chemicals, that led to life. The first two claims are self evident. The last can be demonstrated with analogies found in nature and with simple direct experiments.

As an analogy, the environment is important to macro-scale evolution. The hot desert will set different parameters for evolution compared to the cold Arctic Circle. If you were to transpose life from the Sahara Desert, to the Arctic circle or vice versa, it would not function properly, since it was not originally selected by the parameters within the new environment. 

In the case of life, that formed in water, if we placed these cells, in any other solvents, the new solvent will create a new nanoscale physical chemical environment; polar bears moved to the equator. Tests have been run where water based life is placed in a wide range of different solvents based nanoscale environments. In all cases, the state that we call life, disappeared. The cell was o tuned to water it would not be switched. The polar bear will not survive long in the equator. In the car of cells, all enzyme reactions also became inhibited. The DNA or RNA did not work properly. These experiments tell us that very specific changes, connected to the water environment, must have occurred. Water was the original nanoscale environment for the chemical natural selection processes for all the organic chemicals behind life as we know. There were designed with water surrounding them, with water also self hydrogen bonding in extended space. Stability in the water decided which will be selected. This is not the same in other solvents and was more complex than just any type hydrogen bonding.

The problem we are having in this discussion, is there is a difference between pure and applied science. Pure science is often observational and defines nature as it is. Applied science will use science principles to define nature, as we want it to be. 

A classic example of the contrast between pure and applied science, is diamonds form at high temperature and pressure over along periods of time. This observation is considered pure science observation. Applied science can make diamonds in the lab in a few weeks using various hot press techniques. These applied experiments can be duplicated by others, thereby satisfying the philosophy of science. This is not pure, but it nevertheless satisfies the needs of the philosophy of science. This can fool those who do not know the difference between pure and applied. The factory that makes rubies for lasers, has to be able to duplicate this applied science for quality control. 

In terms of the formation of life, there is no observational data for the direct formation of life on earth. Nobody has even seen it or recored it. A truly pure science foundation is lacking. Instead, we have a range of applied science theories, many of which can be duplicated in the lab, like making diamonds in the lab or rubies in the factory. These approached are both clever and commendable, but the accolades of applied called pure come down to funding and politics, neither of which is part of the philosophy of science. The status quo will always win, when every theory is applied, and there is no pure data.

When there is no pure observational data, we need to conceptually trouble shoot the various applied science procedures including the status quo. Biology is relatively pure, since it deals with cataloging observational data. One can detail an observation without knowing it's hows and whys.

Biochemistry, as applied to life, is not entirely pure science, since it is way too organic centric and ignores the potentials of water, which can be shown to be critical to all key molecular operations in a cell; nanoscale selection.The organic centric approach is applied science, sold as pure science. There is big bucks to be made, so this applied approach has many supporters in marketing. This bias sets bureaucratic limits of what can be said and done, as though it is pure.

For example, the DNA will not work without water. It will not work in other solvents. This is hard data.The base pairs have extra hydrogen bonding sites that are ear marked for water. Yet, textbooks do not show the DNA with all it's chemically attached water, as though water is not needed, and the organics alone can do the job. This is a simplifying assumption used by the statistical version of applied science, that is being used. Since this is not pure science, it will be defended with politics and never any lab proof beyond applied experiments massaged with a fudging factor.

The main topic of this discussion is about life forming in an asteroid. This is a good example of applied science. It is clever and could be done in the lab, if you have access and good lab skills. It  may lead to lucrative innovations. But this is applied and not pure.. However, that should not be discouraging, since the status quo is not pure either. How can you leave out water and be called pure?

Statistical models  are the least pure, since they get to gloss over all the details, and then act like it is a done deal. Cheating with statistics is fine in the factory, so you can cut costs in a competitive market place. But it is not how you do pure science. However, it can be used to handicap the competition, when everyone is using applied science. If you do not cheat, you need to go much deeper, than if you do cheat, which raises even more questions.

[larens (OP)]

Consider that the entire Solar system was set up to be a place for life to originate.

By whom?

By the collective consciousness that wants us to use physical reality as a medium of communication to be in community.

Why are you nitpicking? The taking of a test with a sufficient score meeting the goals of the test's creator is called successful.

If the creator of the test says "it doesn't matter that the bit about titanocene is impossible-  the idea still works" then the "goal" is set so easy as to be pointless.

Titanocene is a well studied chemical. It will naturally form in a very hot hydrogen rich environment that has a locally high C/O ratio and some titanium atoms. If the environment is highly out of equilibrium, because the high temperature arises from a short burst of ionizing radiation there can be a cooler solid phase to quench the reaction. Tholin coated particles in the hydrogen rich Solar nebula set up appropriate conditions.

Storage of the transformed particles in a cold Solar environment allows them to be coated again with tholin so they can fall into a hydrophobic fluid and not have the titanocene immediately react with traces of hydrophilic compounds. Abrasion of the coating will then allow the titanocene to react in a slow, specific manner. The hydrophobic environment means there will be a great scarcity of hydrophilic nucleation sites.

The storage area was at about 9 AU where radiation pressure levitated small particles above the plane of the Solar nebula and away from the Sun. Once the storage area became unstable radiation pressure caused the particles to spiral in toward the Sun. IR heating from a molten Vesta promoted the formation of the hydrophobic phase on its satellite. Springs were intermittent causing there to be alternating layers of evaporites and dust. A moderate speed iron/nickel micrometeorite can then be trapped behind an evaporite layer as it impacts. Water in the dust layer will promote a large calcite crystal growing from this impact point while providing triphosphate for ATP from the reaction between water and shreibersite. The growth of the calcite provided abrasion and mechanical action for the development of a nanotube network between hydrophilic and hydrophobic hubs. This scenario is well supported by research on the early Solar system. The nanotube network chemistry comes from conventional chemistry at the nanoscale.

[Bored chemist]

By the collective consciousness that wants us to use physical reality as a medium of communication to be in community.

How do I distinguish this consciousness before there was life from the good old "Goddidit" model?

[larens (OP)]

By the collective consciousness that wants us to use physical reality as a medium of communication to be in community.

How do I distinguish this consciousness before there was life from the good old "Goddidit" model?

God can cast you into eternal damnation if you do not worship him. Collective consciousness can be friendly. Try South Asian religion if you do not like this polarized characterization.

[larens (OP)]

How would you know? I have posted only a small amount of my research, because people have shown so little interest in detail.

My assessment is, of course, based on what you've posted.

OK - just don't rush to judgement.

You have no skin in the game.

I'm not familiar with this phrase.

It means that you have not yet made an investment in an enterprise, so your opinions are untrustworthy.
 

You cannot as an outsider just set arbitrarily high demands.

Other than yourself, who isn't an outsider?

At the moment, nobody. Astrobiologists will become insiders when they stop exercising their privileged positions and seriously respond to my communications.

Science is a competition. Setting aside differences in social/political power, when one side has explained far more basic questions than any of the others they are taken to be the leading contender.

Only if the explanation for the questions is correct.

By logic explaining questions means those explanations are correct. You are quoting out of context by not including more of my reply.

That was Popper's viewpoint, but the philosophy of science has moved on.

Do you have a reference for this? What year did this switch happen?

It started in 1962 with Thomas Kuhn's, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".

I am, of course. I am the only one capable of making the tests. No one else has learned the details of the model well enough.

And thus you have completely invalidated your claim to having been successful. Anyone can pass a test that they wrote themself.

Some people, however, have learned how to make good tests. This occurs when they have been ostracized, so need good tests to measure their progress. With me this occurred when I was told, "We have a right to impose our culture!", i.e., by violence, rather than by logic.

[Bored chemist]

By the collective consciousness that wants us to use physical reality as a medium of communication to be in community.

How do I distinguish this consciousness before there was life from the good old "Goddidit" model?

God can cast you into eternal damnation if you do not worship him. Collective consciousness can be friendly. Try South Asian religion if you do not like this polarized characterization.

So, they are the same thing really. You just invented a ratehr longwinded pantheism.

[larens (OP)]

Water is the majority component of life on earth. Therefore, life on earth, at all scales, evolved with  water as a majority chemical component. Water was the nano-environment, which defined the physical chemical parameters, used for the natural selection of the organic and ionic chemicals, that led to life. The first two claims are self evident.

How can you leave out water and be called pure?

Most of your reply is skewed toward the assumption that life on Earth started on Earth. I did not leave out water. I was focusing on the nonaqueous chemistry, because that is the least understood. Because polyphosphate both started and ended in aqueous solution, phosphorylation must have occurred on interfaces as a means to extract the rest of the molecule from other phases. The key to understanding most of the nonaqueous  chemistry is that the nighttime temperature of the environment was low enough to freeze all polar phases. This led to geometrical points surrounded by polar solid phases where the polar liquid phase had disappeared. These points marked the hubs of an Halloysite tubular network. Surrounding this network were insoluble grains and hydrophobic phases. The last solution to freeze must have been mostly ammonium sulfate in formamide because of solubility and polarity.

My paradigm shift in evolution is that the geometrical structure of eukaryotes was implicit from the beginning. Species have developed by eliminating potential features rather by adding them. Evolution moved by stepping, i. e., having parallel processes operating in different phases. This allowed a new process to improve while an old process was being phased out. This duality was maintained by protoeukaryotes until at least the Cryogenian ice age. At that time volcanoes erupting in the Iapetus rift releasing ammonia from ancient deltas together with sulfur dioxide. This provided a boom for the protoeukaryotes, who were well adopted to the glacial temperatures. When the bust came a new branch of marine eukaryotes arose, which led to the Cambrian radiation when oxygen levels rose enough to allow animals to thrive. A previous branch of marine eukayotes had developed when oxygen levels rose high enough to allow the larger eukaryotic cells to thrive. Borates were replaced by steranes and hopanes as membrane stabilizers giving the normal biosignature for this branch of life. The more primitive eukaryotes were better adopted to boron-rich hypersaline environments. They have not left easily interpretable fossils because the high reactivity of their interiors has just left masses of aromatic carbon.

[larens (OP)]

By the collective consciousness that wants us to use physical reality as a medium of communication to be in community.

How do I distinguish this consciousness before there was life from the good old "Goddidit" model?

God can cast you into eternal damnation if you do not worship him. Collective consciousness can be friendly. Try South Asian religion if you do not like this polarized characterization.

So, they are the same thing really. You just invented a ratehr longwinded pantheism.

So that puts me into the company of Spinoza and the modern European philosophical tradition.

[puppypower]

If you look at our universe, and the observational/pure science behind the universe, we know that hydrogen atoms appeared early in the universe. Hydrogen is still the most common substance in the universe. It is not coincidence, that hydrogen bonding and reduced hydrogen containing compounds would be part of life as we know it. Life makes use of the majority component of the universe for two key things. Hydrogen bonding holds proteins together and is used by the DNA template. Reduce hydrogen is part of protein, DNA and membrane. These states of hydrogen represent the range of its chemical potential. Only H2 exceeds this.

The question becomes, if there was a God with godlike ability, an intelligent God would not have to micromanage creation by rolling dice each step. Rather he would create a situation, from the very beginning, where the beginning is designed to unfold, naturally, all the way to the end. The early creation would set the potentials for the subsequent steps of change. In this type of scenario, one may not see the hand if God directly in each step, since each step was planned in advanced, to be a logical development from the previous steps of unfolding creation. Hydrogen then hydrogen bonding was already planned in advance. Science does not see micromanaging by God, but it does see an unfolding and a type of advancing recycling sequence.

Some Creationists want to see the finger of God in each step, but this is not needed if God had a longer term plan, that unfolds in time.

As an analogy, say you decided to go camping, int a National Park you have never been. One may pack their vehicle with generic camping supplies, ahead of time. Once you arrive, you set up camp within the unknown future location, all based on the supplies you brought. This is intelligent design since it anticipated the future, of the unknown. It used a reasonable predesigned approach. It may not be perfect, but it is almost there, after a few tweaks.

Stupid design will not anticipate future needs, but will try to improvise in the field. It will need to  micromanage each and every step, as though unknown and unrelated. Planning requires looking into the future. When we start in the present, the future unfolds as anticipated. Living in the present, has no future vision, but has to react to each new mystery, the future creates. God has omniscience ability so he can plan.

My approach has always been to accept that the universe formed in a certain way as defined by science observation. However, I also assume that the beginning already had the future in mind. The last15 billions years of future unfolded from this beginning. It was like a pop up tent that starts small and compact, but then systematically expands  and clicks into living quarters; life. It is not coincidence, that hydrogen is the most common atom of the universe and then hydrogen bonding and reduced hydrogen became a huge part of life.

The most common molecules in the universe are H2, H2O and CO. The most common atoms are hydrogen; H, helium; He, oxygen; O and carbon; C. Why not use the most common atoms and molecules for life, since life is so important to the future, make provisions, early. H2O is the most interesting of the top three molecules of the universe, with over 70 known anomalies, or behaviors that are not found in other materials. What was the point to making water so unique, if water does not play a key role in many things? That would be stupid design. These provisions were made in advance, so the formation if life could follow naturally, as the tent pops up.

The problem in science uses too much statistics to create stupid design. Every step is somehow a gamble and a roll of the dice. One cannot plan in advance, to get a needed future logical result. We need to run tests and solve a mystery at every turn. The concept of intelligent design bothers science, since it appears to be a pipe dream in the world of science casinos, lotteries and dice, where camping is always a daily struggle, The idea of camping being planned enjoyment in a  popup tent seems to far away.

[larens (OP)]

My approach has always been to accept that the universe formed in a certain way as defined by science observation. However, I also assume that the beginning already had the future in mind.

I agree with your general approach.

[Bored chemist]

Fine, but until you can evince it, that's wishful thinking, not science.

[larens (OP)]

Fine, but until you can evince it, that's wishful thinking, not science.

Fine, but to evince it I need a starting point. How about starting with sex? In modern times nuclear reactors came first, then the sexual revolution based on having sex without reproduction, and finally solar electric panels. At the origin of life it was the reverse order. Solar electric panels came first, then the sexual revolution based on having sex with reproduction, and finally nuclear reactors. Females could reproduce by themselves while the males managed nuclear reactors. This approach brings up things that people can relate to.

[puppypower]

Our understanding of life comes from a combination of applied and pure science. The lions share of research, connected to life, is applied science for the the market place. Our core theories of life are not entirely pure. The applied aspect allows plenty of room for alternative theory.

For example,I have shown that water based life will not work in other solvents. Every enzyme and every template does not work, and life will not appear, if we use any other solvent besides water. Common sense would suggest a special symbiosis between the organics and water. This is pure science common sense. Even if we do not agree of the hows and whys the connection is obvious to the rational mind. 

If you look at the current science approach, in terms of life, water is not given the proper proportions of effort it deserves. Water is 70-90% of the mass of cells,  and water is small enough to be everywhere in the cell and can be shown to be essential to everything. However, it is not consider important, on its own. The main approach of modern life science is organic centric with statistics used to lump water into the organics. Even though DNA will not work without water we never show the water in textbooks, but rather lump water into the DNA. The tells us applied science rules life theory since this is not even pure.

This applied science approach is nevertheless useful. since it does save research money and can lead to innovation in the market place. A very comma set of procedures can replace the need to think. But it is not pure. It leaves out a variable that  can be shown to be critical at all levels and stages of life. Simply leave it out water and observe.

In the 1950's, it was discovered, by pure science observations; no bias, that proteins fold with exact folds. Like repeatable science experiments, protein fold the same way each time no matter who does the observing. Although this observation  has been duplicated in the lab and is common knowledge for over 60 years, there is still no statistical explanation. The main theory cannot even explain this yet is remains.

On behalf of the applied science theory, used for life, researching water and life, in a pure sciece way, is not easy. The most important affects of water occur, are dynamic and situ, and are hard to investigate. Statistic was and is still a  way to lump this together, so we do not get bogged down in the weeds pioneering the needed pure science This is done off the free market grid.

 However, I have found seams that can make things easier. Imagine an applied approach that only needs water to explain the parallel universe of the organics. Now we do it the other way around and water into the diversity of organics. But we could use one simple molecule; H2O, to simulate any organic in water since water will forma unique shell around any organic or organic surface.   Modeling becomes an order of magnitude easier,

Note: Lately my old computer gets bogged down when I visit this particular site. My commuter is a circa 2007 iMac. Today I got a warming about too much resources being use by this site, and that I should shut down the internet link to free resources. Yesterday, I could not even post since my computer froze because the RAM was fully used. May I request all ease dropping by outsiders beyond management, limit yourself. Half can do MWF and the other half TTS. I write off the top of my head and there is nothing in my computer of value.

[larens (OP)]

In the 1950's, it was discovered, by pure science observations; no bias, that proteins fold with exact folds. Like repeatable science experiments, protein fold the same way each time no matter who does the observing. Although this observation  has been duplicated in the lab and is common knowledge for over 60 years, there is still no statistical explanation. The main theory cannot even explain this yet is remains.

This is no mystery if one assumes first that evolution selects for proteins that fold rapidly. At a deeper level chemistry is based on quasicrystalline projections from 12-D space. This is the data space of the 24-D code space of the extended binary Golay code space. Its structure group is the uniquely privileged group of finite simple groups. Why quasicrystals can form is another mystery solved by these facts.

However, I have found seams that can make things easier. Imagine an applied approach that only needs water to explain the parallel universe of the organics. Now we do it the other way around and water into the diversity of organics. But we could use one simple molecule; H2O, to simulate any organic in water since water will forma unique shell around any organic or organic surface.   Modeling becomes an order of magnitude easier,

On the contrary modeling is easier if you do it in terms of the main phases involved. That way you are dealing with primary interactions rather than secondary interactions of water in nonaqueous phases. The three main biochemically active liquid phases of early life are water, toluene, and ASF (ammonium sulfate in formamide). The last two are residual liquids after deep freezing. All the solvents, of course, have multiple solutes.

I have been working on describing in detail the first generation ribosome, which includes a Halloysite nanotube. The precursor to the larger unit of the modern ribosome was bound to the end of this nanotube. This mechanism traveled down the  protochromosomes that had a cylindrical core protein passing through 12 bp (base pair) stem loops of RNA, These were translated either into GSGSGS type sequences by the 1 bit code ( G=guanosine -> glycine=G, C=cytodine -> serine=S) or into tetrapeptides by the 3 bp code. The insertion of an extra S giving an SSGSS seqence within a poly-GS sequence triggered the formation of the LVPR tetrapeptide (L=leucine, V=valine, P=proline, R=arginine). These sequences are found in modern protein linkers. Hexa-LVPR peptides with a poly-GS linker running the length of the protochromosome was such a more highly stabilizing core protein for the 3bp code that the intermediate 2 bp code was never filled. (P kinks the polypeptide promoting a circular conformation; R binds to phosphate in RNA.)

LV was subsequently changed to IV (I=isoleucine, which increased the attraction to toluene.) Upon decomposition of the organism IV sequences were protected from racemization. (Presumably they had been intercolated into Halloysite nanotubes serving as a storage area.) Thus there are CC meteorites with enantiomeric excesses only in I and V.  The PR sequences led to PR rich histones, the modern protein spools upon which DNA is wound. The protochromosomes had variable RNA binding energies. This was affected by molecules similar to metatetramethylferrocenium formate. The formate would bind to ribose and the positive end of arginine, reducing the binding energy to RNA. The larger part of this molecule was in the hydrophobic part of the core protein. The ribose/formate complex led to enantiomeric excesses of sugar acids in some CC meteorites.

As you can see the structure of this first generation ribosome is strongly validated by modern data. This last universal common ancestor was a eukaryote that has so far not left distinctive fossil evidence. I will expand on my reply at 24/05/2020 22:29:56, in which I mistakenly referred to the Mozambique rift (opposite side of a crustal plate). The late protoeukaryotic refuge was at the Iapetus rift, whose modern crustal location is around Iceland. Since then the area has been deeply covered in basalt so no fossils can be found. After beginning in the early Cryogenian this rift completely separated the earlier terrains of modern Scandinavia and North America just before the beginning of the Cambrian radiation of higher eukayotes.