Nick Szabo  🔑

@NickSzabo4 @cinnamon_carter It's still unclear if 'genomes' proper are needed or if RNA World (or pre-RNA!) didn't do both simultaneously.

@gwern @cinnamon_carter The issue is the complexity needed to encode, whether in RNA or DNA, metabolic functions.

@NickSzabo4 @cinnamon_carter The issue is assumption length must follow a exact linear form extrapolated back 9bya from present-day data.

@gwern @NickSzabo4 If most depend on the previous this is a logical method to begin, at least as a baseline.

@cinnamon_carter @gwern +1 It's just a simple way to formalize the general idea that evolution proceeds gradually, not by miraculous leaps.

@cinnamon_carter @gwern And follow gradualism all the way back to origins. If anybody has a better model that does that let's hear about it.

@NickSzabo4 @cinnamon_carter There are many distributions more plausible in biology: sigmoids and logistics are all over the place.

@gwern I have no personal feelings on this subject other than scientific accuracy. May I ask your personal feelings if any ? @NickSzabo4

@NickSzabo4 @cinnamon_carter Which we don't know. How many different distinct theories and metabolisms are there now?

@NickSzabo4 @cinnamon_carter Given the inability o specify even what the metabolism *was*, how can bounds on complexity be estimated?

@NickSzabo4 @cinnamon_carter Reminded of the Creationists: 'it would be very improbable for X/Y/Z to all occur!' Yes, that particular way...

@gwern @cinnamon_carter OMG. You are pulling the same stunt you just blamed the paper authors for. "Argument ad creatonists".

@NickSzabo4 @cinnamon_carter No, didn't mean it *that* way. Just pointing out lack of imagination. Should've compared it to p-values instead

@gwern @cinnamon_carter Handing-waving != imagination.