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.
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.