At RealClearScience: “It [the chemoton] was announced to the world in Hungarian, at a time when Hungary was behind the Soviet Union’s Iron Curtain. The chemoton would not reach English readers until 2003, when RNA world was firmly entrenched as the leading theory of life’s origins.”
We were told it was the surest thing in origin of life theories.
It’s unclear why naturalist atheists think that all life must have arisen from a single cell. Could one be a naturalist atheist but still allow for multiple origins of life?
Researchers: “The alternative candidates for our most distant animal relatives are the comb jellies: beautiful, transparent, globe-shaped animals named after the shimmering comb-rows of cilia they beat to propel themselves through the water.”
If we are looking for random generation of life, we must default to puddles if oceans don’t work, right?
Rob Stadler:Origin-of-life chemists have the nasty habit of including only a few pure reagents in their solutions, then claiming victory when they produce something biotic. I’d like to see them place 36603 types of interfering molecules in their flask along with 82 desired biotic molecules, and then hope that the reaction produces something closer to life!
In this podcast, Dr. James Tour and Dr. Brian Miller discuss science and faith, including a presentation by Dr. Miller, showing his extensive expertise in the application of thermodynamics and information theory to the problem of the origin of life.
The researchers “have shown that it is possible for glycine to form on the surface of icy dust grains, in the absence of energy, through ‘dark chemistry’. The findings contradict previous studies that have suggested UV radiation was required to produce this molecule.” Hmm. This might provide support for the idea that primitive life forms can travel on comets.
Many of the mistakes listed seem just to be natural, though incorrect, assumptions of their day. This arsenic-based life though, now that was intriguing, if wrong.
Rana: there appear to be constraints on prebiotic chemistry that inevitably lead to the production of key biotic molecules with the just-right properties that make them unusually stable and ideally suited for life.
It’s best to see origin-of-life studies today as an upper class science hobby.
The problem isn’t with their believing that cells feature lots of intelligence but with their effort to equate human and cellular intelligence. Human intelligence is something quite different.
Has anyone noticed the role that “could have” now plays in Correct science? And what does it mean to say “the origin of life a more common phenomenon than previously thought.” Can we point to other specific examples? It’s an interesting idea in principle but the wheels will probably come off fairly quickly.
Sewell: Maybe some day human engineers will design a self-replicating machine, like those we see everywhere in the living world, but it will not happen in my lifetime, and it will not be simple. It will certainly not show that such a machine could have arisen without design.
This “revolutionary animal” is not that much like the Cambrian creatures so far found but the big question is, how did life explode so quickly if it was only by chance? Why not just give up on that idea and study the creature for what it is?