Expert: Eric Christy - 4/23/2008

Question
QUESTION: Thank you, again for the thorough, deep, and thoughtful answers in this discussion we are sharing in this forum.  To use a "long-haired" term of my grandparents' generation, now obsolete, you have "great hair".

This *is* a wonderful discussion we are having, here, and I believe it will speak to all of those who have eyes to see, and ears to hear, and, thus, will turn the hearts of the children to their fathers: Luke 1:17, Malachi 4:6, Matthew 13:16, Ezekiel 40:4, Proverbs 20:12, Mark 18:8.  A thousand points for free speech in America, when under God.

You are a responsible and formidable truth seeker, who speaks the word of man, and the word of the Word, which is Jesus, which is with God, and which IS God, despite what some Christians against Sola Scriptura might say: John 1:1-23.  You speak them with equal alacrity and powerful persuasiveness.  It is a good fight you fight, here, giving the bread in a famine, for the Word of God.  Luke 11:1-13, Amos 8:11, Romans 10:17, Like 11:28, 1 Thessalonians 2:13.  I don't mind playing the unfortunate devil's advocate, with one foot in the Bible, the Word, and one foot in science, the word.  Thank you very much, again.

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE CREATION BOOK RECCOMMENDATIONS???
Also, since you seem quite well versed in these issues, could you also recommend some consummate Christian Scientist books that I may read on???  I have heard of Gerald Schroeder's book, "The Science of God," which was suggested by Marilyn on this website, and I am ordering that one from Amazon.  You can see my level of reading, so you may suggest some additional appropriate Christian scientist-creationist books to counterpoint people like Stephen Jay Gould regarding evolution, or Steven Pinker regarding discourse and thought, or Richard Dawkins regarding memetics (idea) evolution.

[ [ [PRO CREATION ARGUMENTS RECAP] ] ]
[ [CREATION REQUIRED, REGARDING HOSTILE CHEMISTRY, FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE] ]
Your primary argument set centers on the fact that in a complex early environment, that would be hostile to modern biochemistry, that the proto-biochemical set of reactions, which is allowed to produce all possible reaction products, in a combinatorial chemistry, emphaticlly produces no very long-lived precipitate biomolecules that could last for months or years, in a persistant trickle forward reaction of these durable molecular precipitate products.

This is according to the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE in Creationism.  I quite agree here, that this is a very good argument against increasing complexity, because it truly and surely forms a short circuit in the exponential potential "tree of life", blocking any useful feedback combinatorial chemistry explosion from occuring, due to the hostility of the chemistry to modern biochemical products / species.  However I believe I can still buffer this point, below to the level of proteins, in theory.

[ [CREATION REQUIRED, REGARDING INTELLIGENCE NOT PRESENT, INTELLIGENT COMPLEXITY PRINCIPLE] ]
Another argument set that you pose, is that there is no intelligence in the combinatorial chemistry, as there is no structured chomosome programs to begin with because it requires an intelligent design.  I believe I can address this point too, below.

Now for my counterpoints.

[ [ [PRO EVOLUTION ARGUMENTS] ] ]

[ [EVOLUTION BIOGENESIS OF ENDURING AND OCEAN-BUFFERING ORGANIC PRECIPITATES THEORY] ]

[PRIMITIVE BIOCHEMISTRY SCAFFOLD REQUIRED BEFORE MODERN BIOCHEMISTRY]
Perhaps, the problem with modern experiments attempting biogenesis is that they are searching for a completely modern system of biochemical reaction.  The case likely is that the *actual* early process must first start with a proliferation of a more primitive, and completely ad-hoc methods of combinatorial chemistry *that is naturally robust*, against its own truly and surely destructive forces you've cited against modern biology.  And this is a biochemistry that distinctly doesn't resemble modern biochemistry.  A gauntlet that must be passed through before one can reach modern DNA RNA driven biochemistry of life.

[EVEN HOSTILE COMBINATORIAL CHEMISTRY SPECIE NUMBERS ARE LARGE]
In an extreme chemical environment, it would have it's own unique, yet modern-hostile, combinatorial chemistry, that can withstand it's own hostile products.  Now say there's at one point of enrichment, 500 chemicals in right-handed products exist in useful concentration, with 100 useful reactions supporting them.  And by symmetry, there is also 500 chemicals in left-handed products in useful concentration, with 100 useful reactions supporting them.  Then between the two left and right handed sets of hostile but robust product, there may be more like 100*100 or 10,000 useful inter-actions between the two distinct populations of chiral / handed chemistries.  And further multiplicative interactions possible with the inorganics, and metal ions between.  These catalytic forces *push against the destructive equilibrium* of the hostile environment for more delicate compounds' survival in concentration.

[CATALYSIS INCREASE FAST EQUILIBRIUM CHEMICAL SPECIE]
The numerous catalytic reactions present in the early ocean chemical mix, also pushes against the destructive hostile chemical forces still present, by increasing the fast equilibrium balance of shorter lived prebiotic chemical specie.

[RARE DURABLE SPECIES SHIFT EQUILIBRIA OVER CENTURIES THROUGH SELF BUFFERING SLOW EQUILIBRIUM]
Only a tiny set of continual small rare reactions would be required in the combinatorial chemistry, to produce a very long enduring (robust) set of molecules that last months or even years to act as a persisten equilibrium shifting force on all molecule species.  Using long lived and more reactive cousins to plastics polymers, like unto amber chemicals, that can be burned millions of years later, and still smell of pine, the oceans would contain increasing amounts of these organic precipitates over centuries because they could buffer the oceans of rampant free radicals.  Plus, these buffering effects on the ocean in feedback, also *push against the destructive equilibrium* of the hostile environment for more delicate compound' survival in concentration.

[LONG LIVED BIOCHEMICAL SPECIE CONGLOMERATE INTO MACROSCOPIC PRECIPITATES FURTHER BUFFERING THE HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT]
So one sees a quite-different primitive biogenesis biochemistry set with many ad-hoc molecule association that don't resemble modern biochemistry products, for size or complexity, and survive in their own hostile nature, and they don't yet resemble the fullness of modern biochemistry of life.  This is a biogenesis that relies on the very accumulation of a few extremely durable molecular fragments of the most numerous and enduring polypeptide polymers (short chained proteins), and agglomerations of ad-hoc amino acids, DNA residue fragments, RNA residue fragments, phospholipids, and inorganics.  All of this enduring material accumulates, against the destructive forces in a slowly saturating positive equilibrim, in a spongy *water-hostile-product-buffering* pre-biological materials precipitate, forming layers of biochemical spongy sheets, with a large and persistently enduring biochemical surface area.

The theory here being that the equilibrium changes of the combinatorial chemistry, to allow it to escape from the Fundamental Principle, is that the entire ocean must become buffered over many millennia of years.  This is by the very slow but very persistent accumulation of the longest lived biochemical species, at a rate slightly above their own destruction rate in an entire ocean.  This creates a slowly saturating equilibrium feedback loop over millennia, eventually bypassing the Fundamental Principle, by the saturation of the oceans and bays with these precipitates, that protect themselves with their own buffering against their own destruction, and further protect all of the shorter lived chemical species.  Once highly buffered, the soupy chemical ocean opens the door to the fullness of exponential explosion of the combinatorial chemistry.

It should be added that basic lipids might also be able to spontaneously form into micelles and bi-layers, abiotically, that is, without life.  Liposome formation has been shown in controlled experiments, and might occur in this early buffered ocean theory.  This would further allow chemical products to be protected, lasting for longer than natural equilibrium would allow.  And this would also allow the partitioning of biochemistry into different centers of distinct chemical processes, depending on what micro proteins, and DNA, and RNA fragments that may form in the buffer protected tide-pools.

[MODERN BIOLOGICAL EXTREMOPHILES CITATIONS FOR MODERN HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT LIFE]
Note that life today exists in the most modern hostile environments.  Life occurs in sulfuric light-less 350F ocean floor volcanic sulfuric funaroles, 220F highly salty and mineralized sunny hot springs not boiling because of solute minerals, 27F bottom of the ocean under Antarctic ice shelves with salt not allowing water to freeze, and anaerobic (oxygen free) environments.  These are the cyanobacteria, sulfuric bacteria, anaerobic bacteria like botulism, and other bacteria, that can still operate on DNA, RNA, proteins, and lipid cell wall machinery.  The environment of an early earth bay with prevailing winds and lightning and carbonaceous meteors is, may be relatively less hostile.  So despite the hostility of the environment, early ocean buffering over millennia, allows the combinatorial chemistry to push forward into increasingly numerous reaction complexity.

[LONG RANGE INCREASING BIOCHEMICAL EQUILIBRIUM RECAP]
Some chemical species last for minutes, some for hours, days, months, and a few for years.  The accumulation of the longest lived species over millennia help to buffer the ocean making it more hospitable to the distinctly different early combinatorial biochemistry, from modern biochemistry.  Likewise, catalysts consistently push against the destructive disassembly forces, helping toconcentrating those chemicals into useful and increasingly numerous varieties.  The increasingly persistent and numerous biological chemical species form the backbone of a feedback combinatorial chemistry explosion

Mind that this is a completely ad-hoc method of biochemistry, relying on what would likely be considered hostile waste materials, compared to modern DNA directed orderly right handed chiral biology.  Much like anaerobic environments are hostile to aerobic environments, and vice versa, regarding just one extremophile life-form example.  But, nevertheless, it allows the formation of a slowly thickening spongy soup of true biochemicals over long periods of time, that are naturally similar, but not identical to modern biochemical materials.  In fact modern biology can't even metabolize left handed glucose molecules.  But these hostile molecules would form parts of the early decreasingly hostile ad-hoc catalytic energy exchange currency, much like modern structured and DNA encoded metabolism proteins of life do, today, with right handed glucose.

[USEFUL EXPERIMENT TO CITATION NOT FOUND]
I realize I am being extremely persistent regarding the flourishing of an exponentially growing combinatorial chemistry in a buffered ocean with amounts of months and years long lived biological precipitates, that allow the unconventional catalytic formation of short amino acid chains and DNA and RNA fragments.

Partly it is a lack of experimental evidence that a rich experiment could prove the destructive extinction factor to the exponential branching factor in combinatorial chemistry.  Such proof of the Fundamental Principle would prevent an unintelligent robust hostile environment combinatorial chemistry from flourishing.  I believe this is addressed in the aforementioned ocean buffering by a theoretical number of very long-lived against destruction biological compounds.

In science literature, it would be nice to see an experiment using a large tank full of all the required inorganic chemicals, irradiated with radiation to leave no trace of life before starting the experiment, and an early atmosphere.

Then take the mix in proportion with an acceptable early earth "atmosphere" and "ocean", add some electric discharges, add mechanical agitation of some part with a pump, and have a still bank of more sedate material, and some sunlight.  Then let the purely ad-hoc experiment run for a few years.  All the while measuring the contents for what species of chemicals do exist.  This is much like running 100's of the Miller-Urey type experiments in a "mash", just like the early earth oceans in bays and tidepools, to see if the forces of destruction are truly and surely as strong as you say based on biochemistry.

Unfortunately, I have not read of such an "unstructured" and "ad-hoc" experiment performed, likely because it is frowned upon by the structured chemist's theses in universities.  This could definitievely answer in comcrete exploration, whether one could even reach the genesis of very short chain protiens through catalytic reactions in a combinatorial chemistry.

[ [PRECIPITATE BIOMOLECULAR MEMORY ROOT THEORY] ]
In a way, the sheet of theoretical sponge buffering long lived precipitate acts like a biochemical memory, or intelligence of enduring molecules that allow the enhanced and protected formation of exponentially more new species not seen before the first accumulation of the long lives species occurred.  This creates an even richer combinatorial feedback media for the reaction permutation exploration for building new catalyzed proteins, and protects further the existence of numerous longer chain of RNA and DNA half strand molecules.  That is, the spongy precipitate would absorb light and insulate reactions occurring in a deep mat of pre-organic molecule precipitate.

[ [PRECIPITATE COMPOSITION REACTION DIFFERENTIATIONS THEORY] ]
Each little piece of sponge could act as a minor biological reaction site with its own subtle properties because of differences in composition from neighboring precipitate.  One clump or liposome region could have a large number of RNA short chains that slowly assists the catalytic breakdown of left handed glucose, while another for right handed glucose is catalytically reduced.  These would float and deplete glucose being formed in other areas where, say heavy graphite doping and specific short chain proteins, slowly allows sunlight to occasionally create glucose of left and right handedness.  This shows the first example of predator and prey on the molecular level, or possibly symbiotic relationship, where parts of sponge or liposomes consume other parts, and other parts also produce to replenish the thickening complexity soup with feedback much like the complex processing loops found in photosynthesis diagrams.

These are just examples, but they show that the short chains of DNA and RNA and protein concentrations can act as floating pieces of numeric memory or intelligence on the molecular level.  And that the enduring biological precipitate can begin to show behaviors like cyclic reactions, that builds things up, and breaks things down, from place to place.  As well, permitting more homeostasis to allow new molecular species of long life chemicals to form, that never occurred before.

[BUFFERED CODES ALLOW INFORMATION STORAGE AND EXPONENTIAL COMBINATORIAL CHEMICAL EXPLORATION IN FEEDBACK]
Within the spongy buffering materials floating in the bays and ocean, there will be nurtured numerous specific chains of micro-protein, RNA, and DNA fragments.  Each specific combination represents a piece of intelligence memory of micro-coded reactions.  All reactions are facilitated according to how they are catalytically chained, to allow a exponential combinatorial chemistry explosion of many subtle molecular coded interactions to occur.

[MODERN OCEANS DEVOID OF PROTIEN COMPLEXITY REASON]
In current tide-pools, things like proteins, and all left handed chiral molecules are reprocessed and filtered out by today's oxygen rich and aerobic life filled environment.  The early earth with bio-product buffered oceans had no life to consume these products in quite the same way.  So, much of the reaction products might actually exist longer in that environment without being consumed except in the reprocessing feedback conversion loops of the exponentially combinatorial biochemistry forming in the ocean and more protected prevailing wind bays.

[MICRO_PROTEIN, DNA, AND RNA FRAGMENT MATRIX INTER-REACTION EVOLUTION]
Of course, protein, DNA and RNA segments that have a natural complex chained reaction wholly contained within the exponentially large set of existing protein, DNA, and RNA segments of "micro-coded-reaction-centers", that produce more of their own kind will shift their own equilibrium through autocatalysis.  And specie of protein, DNA, and RNA segments that have no chain reaction that supports them in this existing reaction matrix will decrease their own numbers and perish.  And chain reactions, that support other chain reactions, which, in turn, support the other chain reaction in mirror symbiotic support, will make both chain reactions increase their equilibrium concentrations.  So there is an evolution of micro-protein, DNA, and RNA chains in this exponentially complex set of micro-protein, DNA, and RNA fragments.  Likewise, the micro-proteins, DNA, and RNA fragments are being used directly as reaction products, unlike the modern use by nuclear DNA guided life.  And all of these populations are the ones that are robust against the still-harsh buffered ocean, as they occur in the greatest numbers and durability: Genesis 1:28.

[ELECTRONIC RANDOM CIRCUIT EVOLUTION]
As an electrical engineer, and computer programmer, myself, I also understand the benefits of an intelligent efficient design method to properly bias, and efficiently design a circuit.  However, I have read of experiments using FPGAs (lumped routable logic units in a programmable array) with genetic algorithms.  These algorithms basically combine the primitive micro units of possible processing configurations, in various ways, and if a product is made in effective amounts, it uses those blocks to make further exponential explorations of circuit combinations.  One specific experiment that I quite remember, was one that made a temperature sensor of the FPGA by pure "genetic" combinatorial circuit reprogramming, and the final product worked over a temperature range.  When the design was investigated, they found that some cells that weren't even programmed, were actually part of the design, as when they changed the non-programmed cells, the circuit ceased working.  So it was truly a mystery circuit with, likely glitch reflection or some such subtle reaction, involved with the temperature sensing ability of the whole circuit.  So this shows that unintelligent exponential combinatorial circuit formation is a viable way to generate a product in enduring useful purpose.  Luke 3:8, Matthew 3:9.

The same theory applies to the fragments of micro-protein, DNA, and RNA fragments of micro-coded reaction centers, and liposome micelles, in the exponential combinatorial chemistry, floating in the ocean-buffering residues of the longest lived continually produced biochemical products, that stabilize the whole "tree-of-biochemical-life" in the ocean.

If we can agree to the possibility of this level of biochemical reactions, I can continue expanding the top level essay as the biochemistry transitions to cellular bacterial life?  If we disagree, and it is true that the extinction factors would even prevent the buffering of the ocean, or even micro-protiens in an abiotic environment, then we may part ways.  I would still like to see the rest of your essay on Creation Science, if you wish to email me.

Great regards, Eric,
Shawn Troxel
John 14:11-20


ANSWER: Hi Shawn,

Thank you for your kind words. You are a formidable foe, yourself. Your knowledge of science, and of scripture is refreshing to see! You asked what book, written by a Christian would give strong support for the Intelligent Design/Creationist position? I highly recommend you get Michael Behe Ph.D, book entitled "Darwin's Black Box". He presents support for Intelligent Design from a scientist's point of view, as he is a Biochemist, and teaches at Lehigh University. He writes at a level I think you will enjoy. His science is very strong, and so are the conclusions he makes.

Now, I will have to deal with only a small portion of this monster reply to our current debate. I will have to deal with your points in small chunks. Please be patient with me, my friend.

You stated:
"PRIMITIVE BIOCHEMISTRY SCAFFOLD REQUIRED BEFORE MODERN BIOCHEMISTRY]
Perhaps, the problem with modern experiments attempting biogenesis is that they are searching for a completely modern system of biochemical reaction.  The case likely is that the *actual* early process must first start with a proliferation of a more primitive, and completely ad-hoc methods of combinatorial chemistry *that is naturally robust*, against its own truly and surely destructive forces you've cited against modern biology.  And this is a biochemistry that distinctly doesn't resemble modern biochemistry.  A gauntlet that must be passed through before one can reach modern DNA RNA driven biochemistry of life."

My response:
It seems you're suggesting that perhaps the biochemistry of nature might have been sufficiently different eons ago when life was first forming, that this difference allowed for the creation of complex molecules from simpler constituents, and that they were more robust, that is, they could handle attacks by competing reagents that would cause an adverse chemical breakdown of their complexity, which has been the foundation of my argument against natural chemical systems creating complex macromolecules leading to first lifeform. However, if this is your position, this *same* robustness would also disallow further chemical reactions to the point of not allowing for the development of the complexity required to bring about proteins, and later the DNA/RNA and all the other complex biomolecules, leading to first lifeform. So, on the one hand, by resorting to a more *robust* biochemical protection from competing chemical reactions that would destroy the accidental gains it so far achieved, you have nature ‘protecting’ this evolving macromolecule. But, on the other hand, when nature provides this protection from competing chemical reactions, you also risk the problem of no-further-chemical-reactions, which then would put an end to the further development of this macromolecule leading to first lifeform. The reason is because in providing this protection from further adverse chemical reactions, you also have eliminated its capability of reacting to the reagents it needs to react with in order to become the first protein, and eventually, the first lifeform.

What you have here is a lost cause, my friend. As you know, in my view, nature works to destroy any gains it accidentally creates. In your view, nature protects its gains, but it does so by robustly protecting the evolving macromolecule. But this protection guarantees no further chemical reactions will occur, thus disallowing for further growth in complexity, necessary for protein development and eventually leading to first lifeform. For your view to be correct, not only would nature have to know *when* to allow constructive chemical reactions to occur, but also *when* to disallow destructive ones. This would require intelligence and control of the chemical environment, neither of which nature possesses.

Let's keep this thread going, I'm really enjoying our discussions!

God bless you,

Eric

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: LONG LIVED CHEMICAL SPECIE HARD TO BREAK DOWN, BUT STILL REACTION FACILITATING
Well, I agree the longest lived species would be less reactive, but that's towards breakdown, however, being organic, they are often polar molecules, so they would be long lived conglomerates with some steric / spatial reactive sites that could be reused over and over for buffering the ocean, or for assisting the formation of more complex molecules.  Today's plastics are quite different, and are only an analogy, as there are very few polar ends in polymer chains 10,000 units long, even then, they could be statically charged by mechanical friction, which allows more electric reactions, in it's own right.  But in the early ocean, the amino acid polymers (micro-proteins) would be quite short and often polar, at 2-10 AA units long.  And when they breakdown after months or years of service, there will have been made hundreds of replacements to take it's place by the same slow durable product reaction chains, with many sacrificing themselves to increasingly buffer the ocean, in a constant constructive non-equilibrium positive drift over eons.  And, as the chemistry increases complexity with a buffered ocean, there will begin to form (along with a greater variety of biochemicals) proto-enzymes that can begin to break down earlier longer lived species, even as the complexity allows newer even-longer-lived species form from complexities' search.  So they don't as much *form* the molecules of life, like you state, but they buffer the ocean to make complexity increase, and likely have a facilitating role in molecule synthesis, by their polar and charge transferring characteristics, especially if they get a silver, iron, mercury, or platinum ion lodged in them, by charges from light.  

SIMILAR BUT NOT IDENTIAL TO MODERN BIOCHEMISTRY, ONE MUST START SOMEWHERE, LIKE ANAEROBIC LIFE
In other words, they [long lived specie / agglomerations] are not the protien or DNA or RNA, but rather, they are more akin to buffers, and more importantly akin to "ribosomes" the modern mechanochemical tRNA to protein assemblers, before those complex machines existed, which is why I call them catalysts, as they merely reduce the energy of reaction of amino acid bonding into micro-proteins, ad-hoc, whereas ribosomes actually take codes and carefully translate them.

ENTROPY TO DISORDER IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE IN CLOSED SYSTEMS
ENTROPY TO NUMERIC-POWER ORDER AND DIVERSITY IN POSITIVE OPEN SYSTEMS IS VERY MUCH OPEN TO SOCRATIC DEBATE.
The strongest point I can make here, and quite resourcefully, is that there is a fly, or monkey wrench, sardonically speaking, in the ointment, built into the entropic breakdown principle, contained within the Fundamental Principle; which is that *all closed-systems* will reach a stationary, non-reactive, steady state equilibrium, with absolute certainty.  ***However***, the oceans of the early biochemical earth form an *open-system*, in that the sun shines on it in the day, literally charging the mixture with the power of the Light, for biochemical genesis, and in the night it cools down, constantly cycling the mixture, always in non-equilibrium each day, and always being buffered by long lived products which change the equilibrium for good, over the millennia.  Mark 4:22, Luke 8:17, Job 3:16, Isaiah 30:26, Habakkuk 3:4.  So the ocean forms an energized-open-system which can support increasing complexity, as it is never left to sit on its laurels, and is constantly made to flower in the Light, poetically speaking.

ATOMS TO MOLECULES WITH NO LIMIT ANALOGIES WHEN ENERGIZED BY THE LIGHT
Mathematics, physics, and genetic algorithms are much the same, where a few atomic laws of math, energized by combinatorial exploration, will never cease to form bonds that help make mathematical, physics, or algorithmic "products" of enduring and numerously cited species, even though it has many negative products that fall by the wayside, to the ever more successful "products" cited in enduring numbers.  And, likewise, it is an open system that is constantly fed "energy" from outside, as, if Man were to no longer exist, those products would decay for lack of memory-and-process reproducing and combinatorial-exploring systems.  Much like what is evoked in the book "Godel Escher Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas Hoffstadter, which describes the infinite complexity of creation in positive-energy open-systems with feedback-processes.  Or like the line from "Ghost in The Shell: Innocence", which reads, "The human body, as a machine, that winds its own springs, is the living image, the epitome, of perpetual motion", to which I accurately add, "when under the sun" Ecclesiastes 9:6.  And one last word, regarding a Man who lived 2000 years ago, Who was the greatest catalyst in His teachings, even with forces of destruction circling all around Him, could not be silenced in the pages of human history, of which He has galvanized it, so.  John 3:16.

CREATION THEORY AGAINST EVOLUTION THEORY
What I truely and surely wonder, though, is, does a primordial open-system mix really reach a finite chemical specie population that is inert and inactive in a fully matrix balanced equilibriam against all temporal age chemical specie?

If you are familiar with the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction, you know that there are sometimes additional nonlinear reaction terms which can allow cyclic reactions, or even chaotic reactions, in both time and space solutions.  So does the natural exponential tree of reactions and chain reactions in infinite and cyclic permutations of an open-system really reach a dead end, like you say?  Because it reaches a complexity anti-complexity limitation?  Or is it a wide-open open-system with energized combinatorial chemistry that never ends until something astounding happens? Kind of like the Turing Halting Problem for numbered Turing programs, which I suggest as a good Wikipedia read under  "Halting problem", as an analogy of what happens to make some specie of micro-proteins, micro DNA, and micro-RNA into a catalytic permutative *digital* combinatorial-chemistry that favors all of the increasingly diverse species that feedback on themselves in durable numbers over less numerous enduring reactions?

INTELLIGENCE AND MEMORY WITHIN THE NUMBERS OF THE NUMBERS
Reactions that serve at the micro-X polymer level as digital memory that feeds back on itself into increasing complexity with the continual recharging from equilibrium by the Light for prosperous reaction chains, and perishing the blindly unintelligent chain reactions that don't promote the catalyzation of their own digital polymer species.  This is the *second* level of molecular evolution, and *first* level of molecular evolution in a truly digital domain as the polymers are akin to processing node numerical encodes.  For polymer chains only 5 units long, non-standard amino acids available in a pre-biotic ocean would have 23(or more)^5 = 6456343 blindly encodable reaction nodes, and non-standard RNA and DNA with 5 possible pre-biotic bases would have 5^5 = 3125 blindly encodable reaction nodes.  Counting chained reactions, the numbers become even larger for just short micro-polymers.  The fruitful specie chain reactions, and auto-catalytic reactions, found by a Kirchoff chemical-reaction nodal-analysis, will prosper, while unfruitful ones will die out, and *all* done blindly by durable and prosperous feedback power.  So much like modern photosynthesis and metabolic pathways are a complex of chain reactions, pre-biotic digitally encoded chain reaction pathways are easily formed through natural blind processes.  The theory of Hypercycles, by Eigen and Schuster, reflects on this automatic blind complex of numerating power, where a cycle of 1 is auto-catalytic, and a cycle of n is cyclic / chain-catalytic.  Even humans are using combinatorial chemistry and feedback processes, in the pharmaceutical industry, imitating nature's own tricks, much like biologists / biochemists / scientists so often do for inspiration (take a deep breath), selah.

SIMPLEST BIOMOLECULES IN SPACE
Last minor point against hostile environments, I have read that astronomers have detected basic amino acids inside of meteors, and from comets.  So they are semi-durable in many environments, including supernovae remains traveling through interstellar space, as well as methane, water, ammonia, alcohol.

I agree though, it may be hard to argue this "lost cause", without actually performing the complex mix open-system experiment to see if it "dies" or if it never stops reacting nor complicating, much like me *sheepish grins*.

Thank you for the new book reccommendation, it is definitely on my Amazon shipping list, now.

Regards,
Your Brother in Christ,
Shawn

Answer
Hi Shawn,

I will start my reply where you finish yours, today.

You stated:
"SIMPLEST BIOMOLECULES IN SPACE
Last minor point against hostile environments, I have read that astronomers have detected basic amino acids inside of meteors, and from comets.  So they are semi-durable in many environments, including supernovae remains traveling through interstellar space, as well as methane, water, ammonia, alcohol.

I agree though, it may be hard to argue this "lost cause", without actually performing the complex mix open-system experiment to see if it "dies" or if it never stops reacting nor complicating, much like me *sheepish grins*."

My response:
I would like to know more how these amino acids were found. Were they found in meteorites on earth? If so, the presence of amino acids would be explained as having their source from an earth environment reacting with the meteorite(s). If they exist in outer space, then that demonstrates they do exist in outer space. But remember, having amino acids is one thing, getting nature to create proteins from them, is quite another thing. Nowhere has scientists found nature creating proteins from their amino acid constituents. The reason is because to create a protein, the 20 amino acids have to be in the correct sequence, much like this paragraph composed of letters, which makes words, which makes a complete idea. If each word of this paragraph were an amino acid, and the requirement for the publication of this paragraph (analgous to the creation of a protein) were that all these words had to be in this sequence as you read them, imagine relying on natural (say chimpanzees typing at the keyboard) to get this exact paragraph. They would have to get all these words in their exact sequence correct. Ain't gonna happen, my friend.

But, let's say for the sake of argument, that they did get it right. Not only would that be an amazing stroke of luck by natural systems, but then the response you are going to make to this paragraph would have to also be accidently written by these monkeys (analgous to the forces in nature). For a dialog to occur, you have to respond to my response. And your response has to make sense, has to be intelligent for any further progression of information to proceed. I doubt that even the most die-hard naturalist would believe that the monkeys could keep on typing my responses and yours as well. Essentially, what we're having here is a point-counter point discussion where I challenge you and you counter my challenge. Information is transmitted and it is so via words which reflect the mind, the soul's intelligence. I would say there is zero chance that monkeys typing words on the keyboard (analgous to natural chemical systems working with amino acids) would create the exact words of my response to your response to my response, ad infinitum, ad nauseum :)

You have exhausted me with the length of your Treatise. As you probably have guessed, my only real line of argument has been the consistent theme of nature destroying as easily as it builds, which is the case. And, that being the case, since nature does not know when or how to protect what it's accidentally creating, it destroys it as easily as it builds it. The other parallel line of argument I could use, but don't use at this time, is that nature would have to know AHEAD OF TIME what the currently evolving macromolecule would need in order to become a first lifeform. While this is also true, I decided not to invoke it at this time into our discussion on abiogenesis. Already living organisms have this requisite information stored safely in the nucleus: DNA/RNA. This program tells the cell how to replicate the necessary proteins the cell needs to carry on daily life functions. It also tells the cell how and when to divide making copies of itself.

You, as programmer, know first hand that program code cannot be input randomly into a program, and expect that an intelligent decision will be made by that program. Imagine if you had to leave the genetic code up to nature to encode. Imagine! The best way to imagine it would be if you had a random number generator selecting code and sending that code to be compiled. How quickly do you think error messages would arise? Nature has neither the intelligence, nor the controls necessary to write a program. Humans do, and yet how often do you find your code has errors (bugs) needing fixing? Now as intelligent as you are, imagine letting a completely random source of information (the natural chemical environment assumed to be the source for the first emerging lifeform) be the source of the code of life? Imagine! Life would not arise, any more than a sophisticated program would arise by monkeys typing code at a thousand, a million, a billion keyboards. And life is even more code dependent than our most sophisticated programs. Just one amino acid in the wrong position along the amino acid polypeptide chain will have adverse affects on the performance of that protein. Again, an example of this is sickle cell anemia. Just one amino acid is in the wrong position, and the functionality of that protein is severely hampered. Like computer programs, proteins are code (amino acid) specific. That is because functions are PRE-DEFINED and hence need specific information to instruct the program or the protein how to function. I'll give you two guesses (but you're only gonna need one) who defined those protein functions. Hint: it wasn't nature.

Your friend,

Eric