Origin of life and Darwinian evolution seem to attract the airiest, flimsiest speculations. Is it just a coincidence or could there be a reason for that?
Example: In response to a question re space aliens, ““The question presumes that aliens do exist. And again, because we haven’t found any yet, we don’t know if they do. It is possible they may exist, for one simple reason: we exist. Whatever made the likes of bacteria evolve into complex bodies with intelligent brains on Earth may have also occurred on another planet.”
The new vids feature homochirality, carbohydrates, and the building blocks of building blocks of life.
David Klinghoffer: Tour got going with this 13-part series of lectures in response to a hapless critic, Dave Farina. As a correspondent quips, “I don’t know who Dave Farina is, but he’s kicked the wrong dog.” Indeed so.
Those of us who are already skeptical of the immense role Darwinism is supposed to play after life already exists will find this prebiotic Darwinism hard to swallow. But reader Eric Anderson writes to assure us that that is in fact what origin of life researchers really do believe. Question: If it’s that simple, why isn’t life coming into existence from non-life all the time? As opposed to, say, never?
And yet always just as far off.
“In this compelling series of lectures on abiogenesis, James Tour’s riposte slices through both hype and myths using science to critique “science”, demonstrating how experts in the field truly remain clueless on the origin of life.” We recommend that inveterate yay-hoos find someone else to attack.
“Fake” here just means inanimate objects called bimorphs that form naturally and resemble microfossils. Doubtless, this will complicate searches for the earliest life, which is most likely evidenced as microfossils if it is evidenced at all. That is, of a given specimen, was it ever life?
Michael Egnor: Both an intelligent designer (assuming we’re talking about God) and a black hole are supernatural, in the sense that they are not objects in the natural world. This may not surprise you about God, but it is also true of black holes.
Fernandez: Throughout Demon, Davies injects comments always in support of the Materialistic Darwinist position.
In short, complex life got started even earlier than we had thought, which leaves even less time for unguided, Darwinian evolution.
But it’s unlikely that origin of life can be properly understood without taking into account the role of underlying intelligence.
Rob Sheldon: There was nothing either unethical or inaccurate in the paper. The conclusions were wrong. This is true of over 50% of papers in the literature. Further papers show why the conclusions were wrong. No one retracts a paper because the data was interpreted improperly. For example, Newton’s conclusion that the universe was unstable. Einstein’s conclusion that a cosmological constant could stabilize it.
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.