[[BTW, I am still waiting for someone to provide me with the number of autocatalytic RNA sequences of length 218 or less. You claim that only a special sequence of 20 nucleotides is needed somewhere along the 218 nucleotide stretch. In which case why didn’t Spiegelman just simply snip out that 20 nucleotide sequence and create a Spiegelman monster of length 20? There is no mention in the literature of a Spiegelman monster of length 20.]]

Probably because he doesn’t know which are crucial and which aren’t. It’s not that easy to tell, you know.

According to Futuyma (1982), they got RNA sequences as short as seven (7) nucleotide residues to replicate.

I agree with you, frankly, that the first replicator doesn’t have to be RNA, even on Earth. But that’s as true for standard theories of abiogenesis as it is for Kaufman’s theory. I wrote a paper about that in the ’80s. It wasn’t peer-reviewed, and so doesn’t count as an authoritative source, but it shows that you can believe in multiple possible early replicators without embracing Kaufman’s theory:

http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/Combo.htm

[[Thus, the probability that the Spiegelman sequence could have been hit on by chance at any time during the earth’s history is 4.5 billion divided by 10^82 or 1 in 10^73. So either we are incredibly lucky to have found the Spiegelman sequence or perhaps there is divine intervention needed. The odds get even worse if we consider that life was already going on earth by at least 3.5 billion years ago and probably even earlier.]]

You are assuming that only one combination out of 10^73 will work. What justification do you have for that assumption?

[[This is another prediction of Kauffman’s theory which is, if we ever find extraterrestrial life on Mars, Europa, Triton, or somewhere else it will not be based on RNA, DNA, or even the 20 or so amino acids making up earthly proteins.]]

I wouldn’t be surprised if the nucleic acids or their equivalent were not the same, but I would be very surprised if no amino acids were involved. We’ve found them in meteorites. There might be a handedness problem (50% of aliens will have dextro- rather than levulo-rotatory amino acids), but I expect every ET out there to use glycine and to be able to drink the stuff. (It’s sweet, I understand.)

O.K. So now you’re questioning the diversity of chemical species on the early earth. I guess only RNA could have existed. BTW, catalysis depends on the molecular shape and binding sites. If chemical species D has the right shape for catalysis of A + B –> C then it will catalyze that reaction. It’s not a conjecture. It’s a well known fact.

BTW, I am still waiting for someone to provide me with the number of autocatalytic RNA sequences of length 218 or less. You claim that only a special sequence of 20 nucleotides is needed somewhere along the 218 nucleotide stretch. In which case why didn’t Spiegelman just simply snip out that 20 nucleotide sequence and create a Spiegelman monster of length 20? There is no mention in the literature of a Spiegelman monster of length 20.

You also claim “RNA has this repeating and failover capacity”. What are you talking about? Are you claiming that repetition of some nucleotide, say UUUUU is a failover mechanism? If so please explain how it works.

That sounds like a lambasting cartoon I did on probability titled “Ask Mr. Ology: Probability.” In it, a rabbit character explains that if you have multiple pairs of pantyhose, the chance of all of them running simultaneously shrinks as you increase the number of pantyhose, until as you near zero probability of all of them running you start to run into the probability that they will spontaneously form a black hole. By the time you are infinitesimally close to a zero intercept for probability of all running, you are virtually certain to form a black hole (intercept 1).

Spurious and unscientific daydreaming, which is what the comic was meant to mock. Oddly enough, that is why your explanation seemed so familiar.

The probability of a molecule catalyzing a reaction is more based on a combination of probabilities of either chemical species existing in the first place – the assemblage becomes less and less likely despite conjecture that two of them will react somehow, as does the probability of being able to obtain the *n* number of pantyhose necessary to risk forming a black hole.

Not really. I think you’re not understanding the point. It’s really hard to explain this stuff without reading the book with all the diagrams but I’ll give it my best shot. There is no specific set of 6,000 molecules that form the autocatalytic set. The number 6,000 to 30,000,000 is so large because the probability that a random molecular species will catalyze a reaction is small. Let’s bump up this probability from something in the range 1 in 6,000 to 1 in 30,000,000 to something quite large, let’s say 0.1 so we can better see what happens.

So 0.1 is the probability that chemical species A catalyzes a chemical reaction X Y chosen at random. That means the probability that A does not catalyze reaction X Y is 0.9.

You add your first chemical species A chosen at random (all of the chemical species are chosen at random, there is no selection of any kind).

You add your second chemical species B.

You add your third chemical species C. Now there is a reaction that A can possibly catalyze, namely B C. The probability that it doesn’t is 0.9.

You add your fourth chemical species D. Now there are 3 reactions that A can catalyze, B C, B D, C D. The probability that A doesn’t catalyze any of them is 0.9^3 which is 0.729.

You add your fifth chemical species E resulting in 6 reactions: BC, BD, BE, CD, CE, DE. Probability that A doesn’t catalyze any of them is 0.9^6 = 0.53.

You add your sixth chemical species F resulting in 10 reactions: BC, BD, BE, BF, CD, CE, CF, DE, DF, EF. Probability that A doesn’t catalyze any of them is 0.9^10 = 0.35.

I think you can see where this is headed. So let’s just list the number of chemical species and the probability the A catalyzes none of them:

7 0.21
8 0.11
9 0.05
10 0.02
11 0.009
12 0.003
and so on.

So by the time you get to just 12 chemical species the chances that A catalyzes none of the other reactions is only 0.3 percent which means the chances that it catalyzes at least one of the reactions is 99.7 percent. The same probabilities apply to all the other chemical species. So by the 12th chemical species it is highly probable that each of the chemical species will catalyze at least one other reaction and an autocatalytic set has been formed. Life has begun.

I hope you can follow the example. At no time was there any “natural selection” of any chemical species. It does not have to be RNA, or DNA, or protein, or anything specific. Life originated spontaneously without any selection being necessary. One organic molecule is as good as another.