Q's Open Challenge to Richard Carrier 

(See, "Q's Response to Richard Carrier: About the Debate," for context)

(See also, "Q's Open Challenge to Richard Carrier", and "The 'Fatal Flaw' with Richard Carrier's '1 in 10^41' Argument for Abiogenesis")

I recently wrote on "The 'Fatal Flaw' with Richard Carrier's '1 in 10^41' Argument for Abiogenesis," and around the same time issued a personal challenge to Richard, wherein I offered to "donate money to his website" if he could debunk said "Fatal Flaw" (as decided by "educated, neutral arbiters" "if the two of us can't agree"). "If, however, I'm declared the winner, then I want no money...I simply want to see accurate science taught (call it the pet peeve of a retired national science educator). I would be satisfied with a retraction and correction of [Richard's] long-standing erroneous claim (and I don't even care if I'm credited for it)." (See, "Q's Response to Richard Carrier: About the Debate," to understand the overall context).

To date, Richard has not responded to my offer, nor tried to directly debunk my claim that his twenty-year "1 in 10^41" argument for abiogenesis is "fatally flawed". He did extend the courtesy of posting a link to my response on his site. But he made clear that he thinks my response "ignores everything [he] actually said, claims [he] said things [he] didn't, and continues to assert pseudoscience already here debunked, or non sequiturs that don't address anything here said. But that's fine. Any sane person can tell that for themselves by now."

In reply, I thanked him for posting my link and offered to correct any errors or misrepresentations, asking him, "Am I incorrect in saying the 'Lee peptide' is a polypeptide and not a PNA? Does the 'Lee peptide' self-replicate in a way different from how I explain? Am I incorrect in asserting that self-sustained replication of the 'Lee peptide' would require a continuous supply of 17aa & 15aa Lee peptide 'halves' with amino acid sequences identical to that of a 'Lee peptide'?" But once again, instead of clarifying or directly answering, Richard resorted to his usual rhetoric of how he's supposedly already "explained to [me] multiple times," how "none of what [I am] talking about matters to any of [his] calculations," how "it does not matter 'how' the Lee peptide replicates," and how he's supposedly "explained why this doesn't matter," and if I can't "get it" then I'm "just too bonkers to ever get it".

But it most certainly does matter how the "Lee peptide" replicates, because sustained self-replication of a "Lee peptide" is vastly more improbable than the 1 in 10^41 odds of spontaneously forming an initial "Lee peptide" in the first place, as it requires the impossible feat of beating the "1 in 10^41" odds continuously over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. (Something Richard would know if he had carefully read and understood his primary source citation). I explain at length why this is true in "The 'Fatal Flaw' with Richard Carrier's '1 in 10^41' Argument for Abiogenesis," but will summarize here.

If I'm "Bad at Math," Richard's Worse at Chemistry

Among the many insults Richard doles out in his characteristic abrasive, mocking style (where anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot who doesn't understand how logic and evidence works), he also says I'm "bad at math"; that "understanding the significance...of evidence requires understanding mathematics, at least to a sixth grade level" (a level he apparently thinks I never attained); and he feels the need to dumb down his arguments because they are supposedly "too complicated for Q to grasp" (as if an extra-dimensional being from the continuum would have this difficulty). But if I'm "bad at math," Richard's worse at chemistry. Indeed, had Richard understood his primary source citation he would have realized long ago the "fatal flaws" with his argument.

Case in point, Lee et al. 1996 reports, "The self-replication process displays parabolic growth pattern with the initial rates of product formation correlating with the square-root of initial concentration," and this "observed square-root rate profile...reflects catalyst (template) inhibition through aggregation." Richard obviously doesn't understand the empirical significance of this statement, for if he had, he never would have made the outlandish, ludicrous claim in his "Biogenesis and the Laws of Evidence" that "the self-replicating Lee peptide...scientifically could have evolved into the entire present biome" (or even the more moderate, but still erroneous claim of "an inevitable Lee peptide, in a suitable environ for its forming and evolving, somewhere in the universe"). The reality is the "Lee peptide" cannot sustain its own replication via exponential ("Darwinian") growth even in the "right environment" with a continuous supply of substrate "building blocks," due to intrinsic deficiencies in its catalytic ability. For as Lee et al. 1996 reports, it exhibits parabolic rate kinetics—not exponential—due to product inhibition. Specifically, when the "Lee peptide" makes a copy of itself, the resulting "Lee peptide" copy (i.e., product) fails to dissociate from the template strand (i.e., it tends to ‘stick’ or stay bound to the original "Lee peptide"). This means that with each successive round of self-replication, fewer and fewer "Lee peptide" copies are created. It is a case of diminishing returns (even in "a suitable environ") with progressively dwindling results until the autocatalytic cycle is effectively arrested. As such, the "Lee peptide" also does not meet the NASA definition of life that Richard appeals to, since it is not "a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution." (For a further detailed discussion of this problem, see, "Why the 'Lee Peptide' Cannot Sustain Exponential Growth Even with a Continuous Supply of Substrates").

Thus, sustained self-replication of a "Lee peptide" is not possible even with a continuous supply of substrate "building blocks" in "a suitable environ." But we can't even get the continuous supply. As Lee et al. 1996 state in their abstract: "We show that a 32-residue a-helical peptide...can act autocatalytically in templating its own synthesis by accelerating the thioester-promoted amide-bond condensation of 15- and 17-residue fragments in neutral, dilute aqueous solutions." 

Once again, had Richard carefully read and understood even just the summary abstract of the research he cites, he would have realized that a "Lee peptide" does not replicate by chaining together amino acids, but by helping chain together what is effectively two 'halves' of a second identical "Lee peptide"—a 17 amino acid long 'half', and a 15 amino acid long 'half'—to make another identical 32 amino acid long "Lee peptide" copy of itself.

17aa 'half''                                    15aa 'half'

32aa "Lee peptide"

Amino acid sequence of a "Lee peptide" and its corresponding 17aa & 15aa 'halves'
(See, "Template", "Electrophilic fragment," and "Nucleophilic fragment", Figure 2, Lee et al. 1996)

A "Lee peptide" self-replicates by helping connect two 'halves' of a second identical "Lee peptide"

Thus, even if we beat the 1 in 10^41 odds and spontaneously form a "Lee peptide" self-replicator in the "right environment", nothing will happen, because it has nothing to catalyze, so our "Lee peptide" will 'sit' around and do nothing (at least until it decomposes back into its component parts). It cannot self-replicate unless it has substrate “building blocks” (i.e., the 17aa & 15aa 'halves') to help connect together to make more copies of itself. That is why the spontaneous formation of a "Lee peptide" (even in the "right environment") is not sufficient for abiogenesis. We also need what is effectively a second identical "Lee peptide" copy ('broken' in half) to also spontaneously form in the same place (another 1 in 10^41 chance event, which combined makes 1 in 10^82), so our "Lee peptide" can help connect the two halves together to make another identical "Lee peptide" copy of itself. We then need another set of "Lee peptide" halves to spontaneously form in the same place (1 in 10^123), and then another (1 in 10^164), and another (1 in 10^205)—a continuous supply—in order to have a self-replication reaction that is self-sustaining. The instant we run out of "Lee peptide" halves, the reaction stops. (All this, of course, ignores the fact that the "Lee peptide" cannot sustain self-replication even with a continuous substrate supply due to its parabolic rate kinetics as discussed above).

The "Fatal Flaw" with Richard's "1 in 10^41" argument for abiogenesis

I put the question to Richard:

"In order to have sustained self-replication of a Lee peptide we need a continuous supply of 17aa oligopeptides with this exact amino acid sequence (RMKQLEEKVYELLSKVA), AND we also need a continuous supply of 15aa oligopeptides with this exact amino acid sequence (CLEYEVARLKKLVGE), so our Lee peptide can self-replicate by helping chain these two oligopeptides together to make identical 32aa Lee peptide copies of itself with this exact amino acid sequence (RMKQLEEKVYELLSKVA—CLEYEVARLKKLVGE). Question: From where do you propose we get this continuous supply of specific 17aa & 15aa oligopeptides with said exact amino acid sequences? Answer me that with a cogent response (and without saying you've "already answered", because you haven't), and you will never hear from me again. And don't tell me it doesn't matter, because we can't have sustained self-replication of a Lee peptide without it, which defeats the whole point of having a self-replicator in the first place."

Richard did not reply, so I am now challenging him again:

"I take your silence as your inability to directly answer where we get the continuous supply of specific, exact sequence 17aa & 15aa oligopeptides needed for sustained self-replication of a 32aa Lee peptide; without which a Lee peptide-based origin of life is impossible, and your long-time, twenty year "1 in 10^41" argument for abiogenesis is utterly bereft and without merit. Humor me with a direct, cogent reply (and without simply saying you've "already answered" or it "doesn't matter"), and I will concede defeat and you'll never hear from me again. Otherwise, it is time for you to concede and make good on your boast that you always "immediately correct" errors because of your "effective epistemology," starting with your "1 in 10^41" argument, which is truly a whopper of an error. I am an evolutionary biologist who rejects creationism (but also the "scientism" you are promoting), a peer reviewer for a national science ed. journal, and a retired national science educator with enough time on my hands to promote my blog response to yours as a new hobby distraction. But I prefer instead to first extend you the opportunity to directly rebut my argument, if you can. (For a review of said argument, see "The 'Fatal Flaw' with Richard Carrier's '1 in 10^41' Argument for Abiogenesis", and my latest post, "Q's Open Challenge to Richard Carrier")."

Is Richard up to the challenge? We shall see...