Question for evolutionists: “If fossils are actually young, would you find ID more believable?”

_{Salvador Cordova

August 21, 2013

Evolution, Geology}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The question of the fossil ages is comparable to a central problem in forensic crime investigation, namely establishing the time of death. Did the creatures in the fossil record die tens of millions of years ago or did they die recently (say less than 50,000 years ago). It is mildly unfortunate that criticism of accepted mainstream fossil ages are conflated with YEC, because strictly speaking the age of the fossils is a formally distinct question from the question of Young Earth Creation (YEC) and the age of the Earth.

One reason that criticism of the geological record has been resisted (even within ID circles) is the affiliation of such criticism with YEC. But this does not have to be the case. For example, Richard Milton, who is not a creationist and is an agnostic, believes the accepted mainstream geological ages are false.

And it’s not even all geological ages, but the relatively “small” section of geological timescales known as the Phanerozoic (back 541 million years to the present).

[To see the graphic below more clearly, you might be able to zoom into it here:
Geological Timescales]

geological timescales

Now, a question for defenders of mainstream evolutionary theory, “suppose for the sake of argument the fossils are young (say 50,000 years max). Would you still believe in naturalistic evolution or would you accept ID or (gasp) even special creation?”

I’m asking because critics of ID have demanded more evidence. The irony is that some of the most unsavory and scandalous players in the ID big tent (the YECs) might be delivering a death blow to evolutionism in the minds of those willing to deal fairly with the facts at hand.

NOTES
1. HT Mike Gene for the idea of asking this question in 2005:
A nagging question about MN

According to the Decree, MN “is the foundation of the natural sciences.” But let’s do a thought experiment.

MN is used to determine the age of the Earth. What if MN determined that the Earth was 6000 years old?

MN is used to explore the relationships between living things. What if MN determined that living things can be neatly fitted into discrete, discontinuous groups, such that it would be impossible for them to be related by common descent?

MN is used to study the surface of the Earth. What if MN determined that there once was a global flood?

If MN determined that the Earth was 6000 years old, that evolution could not occur and all living things were fitted into discrete, discontinuous groups, and a global flood once covered the Earth, does MN then mean we must explain this all “without reference to supernatural beings or events?”

2. Here are a few empirical considerations in favor of revising the ages of the fossils (revising the time of death estimates)

Cocktails! C14, DNA, Collagen in dinosaurs indicates geological timescales are false

Cocktails! ICC 2013 C14 dates conflict with Carboniferous Era dates 300 million years ago

Cocktails! Falsifying Darwinism via falsifying the geological column

Cocktails! Astrophysics vs. Darwinist Paleontology

ICC 2013 Creationist Bob Enyart attempts to bribe Darwinist Jack Horner

Expelled Microscopist Mark Armitage responds to his critics

Mark Armitage possibly the latest victim of Darwinists Inquisition

Distant starlight the thorn in the side of YEC — can there be a middle ground?

The price of cherry picking for addicted gamblers and believers in Darwinism

These links are pretty much all the pro-YEC stuff at UD out of the nearly 11,000 threads at UD. But given the possible payoff for ID if indeed the Phanerozoic is younger than thought, and in addition that the YEC community constitutes about 30% at least of the ID community, the discussion of these topics have to be explored, especially now that the Darwinist Inquisition is now possibly affecting YECs not just the general ID community.

3. My usage of “unsavory and scandlalous players” was a reference to Dembski’s essay referenced here:

Scoundrel Scoundrel, I like the sound of that

supporters of my work constantly pointed to my unsavory associates. I was treated like a political figure who is unwilling to renounce ties to organized crime. It was often put to me: “Dembski, you’ve done some respectable work, but look at the disreputable company you keep.” Repeatedly I’ve been asked to distance myself not only from the obstreperous likes of Phillip Johnson but especially from the even more scandalous young earth creationists.

Bill Dembski

4. photo credits
http://www.iupui.edu/~geol110/assets/02_geotime/EOG_11e_Figure_18_21.jpg

5. It might be interesting to explore the Ediacaran (635-541 million years back) where there were some life forms in evidence.

Comments

If so, how do you draw that conclusion?
Dessication. Proteins will hydrolyse in an aqueous medium in thousands of years. Dry matter can survive a lot longer.Alan Fox_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

I am a great believer (heh) in using E-prime to clarify questions and expose (in my own writing as well as that of others) hidden lurking assumptions. Translating Sal's question into E-prime is useful, I think. He asked:
suppose for the sake of argument the fossils are young (say 50,000 years max). Would you still believe in naturalistic evolution or would you accept ID or (gasp) even special creation?
In E-prime you can't use the verb "to be". So we need to replace the bolded.
Suppose for the sake of argument that ~~the fossils are young~~ some scientists found strong evidence to suggest that all fossils were formed fairly recently (say 50,000 years max). Would you still believe in naturalistic evolution or would you accept ID or (gasp) even special creation?
Put like that, it is clear that the first thing we need to know is who those scientists are and what the evidence is. We simply cannot address the question without knowing that. The reason that E-prime is useful (and is, incidentally the same reason why scientific journals increasingly require authors to avoid the passive voice, in contradiction to old styles of scientific writing: "the acid was added to the test tube"), is that it disallows any simple assertion, and makes it clear that all assumptions are provisional. It also forces the agents responsible for any assertion or claim to be identified, and precludes "God's eye view" statements masquerading as knowledge. For example it is possible that from a God's eye view it is true that the fossils are young. However, what we believe about the universe depends not on what is true but on what evidence supports. For instance, even if it is true that the pebble I can see on my garden path was deliberately placed there by someone for artistic effect. However, I don't believe it was, because I have no evidence to think it wasn't just kicked there by me accidentally the last time I went to water the basil. So the question Sal is asking is not really "if the fossils ARE young, what WOULD we believe?" which doesn't make a lot of sense, but rather "if new [unspecified] evidence were to suggest that fossils were laid down recently, what would that do to the provisional conclusion most of us currently hold, based on current evidence, that they were laid down much earlier?" And the only possible answer is: depends precisely on what that [unspecified] evidence actually is.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT}

PHV #149 'I’m no expert, but I think the answer to your question (at least in part) is that “Fact 1? is false. I believe that amber is organic, and can last for millions of years. So can remains trapped inside amber, if I’m not mistaken.' Whether or not we can compare 'amber' to 'soft tissue', i'm not sure that really works? However, what interests me more is your point about 'remains trapped inside amber'. Although I am well aware of discoveries of 'soft tissue' found inside amber that is thought to be millions of years old, are you suggesting that this is to be expected, or perhaps shouldn't be viewed as surprising? If so, how do you draw that conclusion?PeterJ_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

Question for evolutionists: “If fossils are actually young, would you find ID more believable?”
I see Sal asks me how I would answer his question. ID is, I guess, a belief system for many. That an omnipotent deity is the creator of all things. This belief doesn't appeal to me, personally. Fine, for those to whom it makes sense, please carry on. ID as Science. No. There's no theory, no hypothesis, no clear thinking, no attempt at seeing things as they are and working forward. It's all about arguing to confirm your conclusions. And what if fossils are young? But they're not. What if the moon were made of green cheese? I don't see the need to give impossible hypothetical questions much consideration.Alan Fox_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
01:37 AM
1
01
37
AM
PDT}

Sal: Is a man-made design an example of intelligent design? Alan Fox: NO!!! Sal: Given what you said, is the Space Shuttle an example of intelligent design? How about GMOs? Alan Fox: Nothing is an example of intelligent design unless you want to tell me what “intelligent design” is other than the creationist ploy we both know it to be.
Thanks for the reminder and the stroll down memory lane. I should have adopted Gregory's rule and Capitalized "Intelligent Design" to distinguish it from "intelligent design". So I can now clarify that the space shuttle was intelligently designed but not "Intelligently" designed. :) I encourage anyone who has time to spare to have a look at some of the threads at arn.org and experience the déjà-vu for themselves. Dr N Wells' posts, especially, are worth reading. No new ID ideas seem to have emerged that have not already been beaten to death at ARN.Alan Fox_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT}

#145 Collin
ID is a narrow theory. Unlike evolution and creationism, which are worldviews, ID claims only that some features of the world exhibit objective signs of design. That is the core of it and it is a hypothesis. Now how do we test it? If you believe that FCSO is a bad test, fine, but other tests can possibly be devised.
I have had this debate many times. I will try to explain once more but forgive me if I get bored quite quickly. Modern evolutionary theory is certainly open to testing. About half of the posts on UD point out possible problems. They may the subject of dispute but there is a hypothesis to dispute. Indeed Darwin’s original ideas have been modified in the light of observation. Scientists now accept genetic drift and horizontal gene transfer to name just a couple of things. YEC is also open to testing and is clearly wrong. How do I set about testing whether something was designed? The only method that has ever been proposed on UD is to show it was created some other way. But actually this does not preclude a designer of unknown power and motives who might had made it look as if it were not designed. There is no observation that cannot be perfectly explained by a designer with sufficient power and motive. Of course most people prefer not to propose a designer if they can see another explanation – but it is not at all clear why if you accept design in general as an explanation it will always be the best explanation.Mark Frank_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 143
You of course provided an example of FSCO/I by posting your comment. Q: How did it come about? A: By intelligent design. If by contrast, it had come about by lucky noise on the Internet, in our observation, that would be a direct and falsifying counter example.
The problem I pointed out with falsifying the unqualified claim "intelligent cause" - which you have not addressed here - is that you cannot in principle rule out the possibility that what appears to be "lucky noise" was in fact intelligently caused e.g. by scientology thetans, or by fine tuning of physical parameters in the distant past. Because the bare claim "intelligent cause" is so open-ended, it includes under its wide umbrella many such conceivable "intelligent causes" that cannot ever be falsified. And since there is thus no way in principle to falsify the unqualified idea of an "intelligent cause", then this is not a scientifically testable idea. To make the claim of "intelligent cause" scientifically testable, one would need to narrow the claim so it can be falsified e.g. "intelligently caused by humans in 1984". Alternatively, one would need to demonstrate how science can rule out even the smallest possibility of disembodied spooks like scientology thetans who can intelligently manipulate physics, or superintelligent, superprescient fine tuners operating in the distant past - something science has never been able to do, and has never pretended to do.CLAVDIVS_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}

1) Fact 1: Organic material breaks down in thousands, not millions, of years I'm no expert, but I think the answer to your question (at least in part) is that "Fact 1" is false. I believe that amber is organic, and can last for millions of years. So can remains trapped inside amber, if I'm not mistaken.Pro Hac Vice_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

Joe @ 133
Not all rocks are artifacts, not all deaths are murders and not all fires are arsons.
But you cannot prove, scientifically, that all rocks, deaths and fires were not intelligently willed into existence by scientology thetans. And ditto for all manner of other spooks and disembodied intelligences. Therefore, the unqualified claim "intelligent cause" is not falsifiable, and thus it is not scientific. QEDCLAVDIVS_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

I hope this doesn't qualify as a thread hijack, but reading Elizabeth Liddle's responses prompts me to ask. I've never seen a direct evolutionist's answer to the following: 1) Fact 1: Organic material breaks down in thousands, not millions, of years 2) Fact 2: Original organic material has been recovered from inside multiple fossils claimed to come from 80-160mya strata 3) Logical conclusion 1: The fossils cannot be millions of years old 4) Logical conclusion 2: The age of the strata is either not millions of years old, or is not the same as the age of the fossils contained therein There are only two possible rebuttals from evolutionists that make sense - either Fact 1 is false, or Fact 2 is false. Fact 1 can only be false if you assume our knowledge of chemistry, physics and the effects of energy and background radiation is wrong. Fact 2 can only be false if every single instance of claimed original biological material is wrong, due either to biological contamination, or some other cause. Simple, yes? Yet, like Dr. Liddle, almost no evolutionist will give one of those two straightforward answers. I've come to the inescapable conclusion that this must be because if they do, their objections can be met head-on, and they will be left fighting a losing cause. Disputing Fact 1 or Fact 2 is a no-win situation. So they avoid the battle with obfuscation and misdirection, so as not to be proven wrong. So, challenge to UD's evolutionists: which Fact do you dispute? 1 or 2? Or would you like to dispute the Logical conclusions?drc466_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

Sal, Back to your original OP: Battles are won when a commander determines an enemies weak point and brings overwhelming force to that point. If you really think contesting the age of fossils or the earth has merit than you should run with that. If you're vindicated than all other ID arguments - SC, junk DNA, IC will fall by the wayside. They'll all be completely superfluous because EVERYONE will agree that evolution couldn't possibly occur in the timespan you're talking about. Of course you already know that I don't think this is a productive argumentRodW_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

Mark, ID is a narrow theory. Unlike evolution and creationism, which are worldviews, ID claims only that some features of the world exhibit objective signs of design. That is the core of it and it is a hypothesis. Now how do we test it? If you believe that FCSO is a bad test, fine, but other tests can possibly be devised. When Einstein came up with his theory of relativity there was no way to test it. That did not mean it was unfalsifiable. It just took some time for techology to come up to speak in order to test it.Collin_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

No. The problems with ID are deeper than that. There cannot be evidence for ID without a ID hypothesis. As it stands ID is like offering “chance” as an explanation with no further detail.
If I'm understanding you correctly, your issue is the ID hypothesis as articulated by ID proponents. I sometimes forget there is a fine distinction between ID in formal sense (as articulated by various definitions in the blogsphere), and your own notion of some intelligence possibly creating life. I would presume, you also mean youth in fossils wouldn't make you more inclined to think some intelligent agency (God or aliens or an intelligent universe) was at work. Obviously, for some of us, the notion that the fossils are young is not merely a hypothetical, but a real possibility, independent of the age of the Earth and other parts of the geological record. So the question wasn't intended to be a pure exercise in hypotheticals... Thank you again for your always polite and civil responses to me and for your courage in visiting UD in as much as the exchanges here can be sometimes heated. regards, Salscordova_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

Claudius: You of course provided an example of FSCO/I by posting your comment. Q: How did it come about? A: By intelligent design. If by contrast, it had come about by lucky noise on the Internet, in our observation, that would be a direct and falsifying counter example. The matter is fairly obvious: 1 --> FSCO/I is observable and quantifiable (for reasonable files for documents etc, the file size is a measure). 2 --> Its creation can be observed. 3 --> There are billions of cases in hand, and in every one of them, the origin of the FSCO/I was by intelligence, where we see it. 4 --> To falsify -- as is well known and as you know or should know -- all that is required is to provide a case of origin (not copying) that indicates an increment of 500 - 1,000 or more bits of functionally specific info originating by blind chance and mechanical necessity. 4 --> Over the years here at UD I have seen any number of attempted counter examples and in every case on closer inspection they are designed, the mars canal sketches and the simulation of self evolving clocks coming to mind as particularly vivid attempts. 5 --> The reason is fairly obvious once the needle in an astronomical haystack search imposed by that threshold of complexity is understood, and once it is appreciated that the constraints on arrangement and coupling naturally lead to deeply isolated islands of function. 6 --> So we have excellent reason to see that FSCO/I is a reliable sign pointing to design as cause. 7 --> That is not particularly difficult to figure out, or inductively justify. The real problem is that some features of the natural world are chock full of FSCO/I, e.g. the living cell. 8 --> That challenges dominant ideological impositions on science and science education, hence the problem. 9 --> But those impositions beg huge questions. So it should be a no-brainer. KFkairosfocus_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

Yup, definitely! But the designer doesn't need to be a god but could very well be a space alien, or an alien running a gigantic computer simulation... Lothars Sohn – Lothar’s son http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.comLothars Sohn_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

So I just recommended to someone that they come debate on uncommondescent.com because it's usually polite and mature... Have I made a mistake?Collin_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

I am sorry if I repeat myself but Sal asked a question and the reply involved saying something I had said before. At age 62 I am delighted you find it childish.
Then fantastic. Perhaps dodging counter-arguments keeps you young. It's great to see no matter one's age one can remain young of heart(or mind).TSErik_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

#138 TSErik I am sorry if I repeat myself but Sal asked a question and the reply involved saying something I had said before. At age 62 I am delighted you find it childish.Mark Frank_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox: Nothing is an example of intelligent design unless you want to tell me what “intelligent design” is other than the creationist ploy we both know it to be.
Gotta love that childish prattle. Mark and Alan seem to specialize in it. They continually recite their sloppy memes that only fool the internet ignorant. many times hoping that this is the time it will stick. That isn't to say there isn't room for debate and discussion. Certainly, there is. However, shouting the same stuff over and over, never quite responding to counter-arguments makes them look desperate, only inducing eye rolling.TSErik_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

I'd like to thank all who answered the question in the OP. The answers so far: Mark Frank
No. The problems with ID are deeper than that. There cannot be evidence for ID without a ID hypothesis. As it stands ID is like offering “chance” as an explanation with no further detail.
Lizzie
Saying: what if all the fossils were young? is like saying: what if everything we knew was wrong? It’s impossible to answer. I have no idea what I’d think.
RodW
Sal, I’ll answer your question directly: If ‘all’ the fossils, including the precambrian were shown to be less than 50,000 years old then yes, evolution couldn’t possibly have happened. Then ID and special creation ( which are pretty much the same thing) would start to look much better.
Any one else? The point of this was not to condemn or judge, but to understand how other people view the issues. What is evident is for Mark and Elzabeth it wouldn't be immediately convincing even if the data made it obvious the fossils were of recent origin. Even if, hypothetically YECs or secular scientists demonstrated they could modulate the speed of light in the Aether and then make old looking rocks through electrical means, that genetic entropy were confirmed through gene sequencing and by the rapid extinctions in evidence today, etc. They would not immediately embrace ID or special creation. Would they even dispose of evolutionary theory? I respect their views, but I cannot share in those views. Any one else want to answer the question. We have Alan Fox who said:
Sal: Is a man-made design an example of intelligent design? Alan Fox: NO!!! Sal: Given what you said, is the Space Shuttle an example of intelligent design? How about GMOs? Alan Fox: Nothing is an example of intelligent design unless you want to tell me what “intelligent design” is other than the creationist ploy we both know it to be.
So I predict Alan will say "No" or "I don't know". In reciprocity, what would cause me to disbelieve ID? If a scientist solved the OOL problem.scordova_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

JGuy and others whom I may have led astray in the past, I apologize. I tried to make amends here. https://uncommondescent.com/creationism/admitting-significant-errors-in-my-understanding-of-physics-speed-of-light-theories/scordova_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

A 5 year-old could easily grasp this concept.
Yes it's amazing what Joe is capable of at his age. *smiles fondly*Alan Fox_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Of course it is. If ID makes the claim that blind and undirected causes cannot produce something and thety are observed producing it, then the claim is falsified. Not all rocks are artifacts, not all deaths are murders and not all fires are arsons.
A 5 year-old could easily grasp this concept. I really wonder why so many adults seem to grapple with it.lifepsy_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS:
Well, what would falsify it? Finding an example of something with FSCO/I (etc) that was not the result of intelligent design, right? But this is not a scientific test.
Of course it is. If ID makes the claim that blind and undirected causes cannot produce something and thety are observed producing it, then the claim is falsified. Not all rocks are artifacts, not all deaths are murders and not all fires are arsons.Joe_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 119
What part of: “FSCO/I (etc) is empirically observed with billions of cases and is uniformly observed to result from intelligent design; where this is backed up by config space and blind search analysis, thus it is a testable hyp that FSCO/I is a reliable sign of design” . . . is not a testable scientific assertion?
Well, what would falsify it? Finding an example of something with FSCO/I (etc) that was not the result of intelligent design, right? But this is not a scientific test. Science can't rule out intelligent scientology thetans tinkering mentally with physical phenomena, and such like and so on, therefore the claim of an unlimited and unqualified "intelligent cause" cannot be falsified, even in principle. Accordingly, "FSCO/I is a reliable sign of intelligent design" is not falsifiable and thus not scientifically testable. QEDCLAVDIVS_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

Alan & Mark should stop wasting their time posting on the internet because it is obvious that they are totally clueless and a waste of bandwidth...Joe_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

I endorse Mark's remark, KF. Please don't waste time posting on the internet when your mind is elsewhere. It's not fair on you, your family or people who might respond. The sky won't fall in if you concentrate on your son's health for a while. Seriously, best of luck with your son's treatment for the best possible outcome.Alan Fox_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox, You certainly have posted a great amount of repetitive ignorant spewage over the years. Repeating it does not make it any more correct. And yet that is all you ever do...Joe_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

PS: just to document, let me cite the c. 2006 exchange between Shapiro and Orgel [not that silly IDiot who spews out verbiage of MF's denigratory caricature . . . ], noting that the situation has not radically improved since then: ___________ [[Shapiro:] RNA's building blocks, nucleotides contain a sugar, a phosphate and one of four nitrogen-containing bases as sub-subunits. Thus, each RNA nucleotide contains 9 or 10 carbon atoms, numerous nitrogen and oxygen atoms and the phosphate group, all connected in a precise three-dimensional pattern . . . . [[S]ome writers have presumed that all of life's building could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites and other extraterrestrial bodies. This is not the case. A careful examination of the results of the analysis of several meteorites led the scientists who conducted the work to a different conclusion: inanimate nature has a bias toward the formation of molecules made of fewer rather than greater numbers of carbon atoms, and thus shows no partiality in favor of creating the building blocks of our kind of life . . . . To rescue the RNA-first concept from this otherwise lethal defect, its advocates have created a discipline called prebiotic synthesis. They have attempted to show that RNA and its components can be prepared in their laboratories in a sequence of carefully controlled reactions, normally carried out in water at temperatures observed on Earth . . . . Unfortunately, neither chemists nor laboratories were present on the early Earth to produce RNA . . . [[Orgel:] If complex cycles analogous to metabolic cycles could have operated on the primitive Earth, before the appearance of enzymes or other informational polymers, many of the obstacles to the construction of a plausible scenario for the origin of life would disappear . . . . It must be recognized that assessment of the feasibility of any particular proposed prebiotic cycle must depend on arguments about chemical plausibility, rather than on a decision about logical possibility . . . few would believe that any assembly of minerals on the primitive Earth is likely to have promoted these syntheses in significant yield . . . . Why should one believe that an ensemble of minerals that are capable of catalyzing each of the many steps of [[for instance] the reverse citric acid cycle was present anywhere on the primitive Earth [[8], or that the cycle mysteriously organized itself topographically on a metal sulfide surface [[6]? . . . Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own . . . . The prebiotic syntheses that have been investigated experimentally almost always lead to the formation of complex mixtures. Proposed polymer replication schemes are unlikely to succeed except with reasonably pure input monomers. No solution of the origin-of-life problem will be possible until the gap between the two kinds of chemistry is closed. Simplification of product mixtures through the self-organization of organic reaction sequences, whether cyclic or not, would help enormously, as would the discovery of very simple replicating polymers. However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help. [[Emphases added.] ________ Do I need to add that DNA and its derivative mRNA are code bearing string structures and that it is possible to code nonsense AA strings in the relevant code? Where on evidence it is about 1 in 10^74 which will relevantly fold, first tier of correct function in the cell. I have to go now.kairosfocus_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

KF I forgot that your child has just had a very serious operation. In view of that I think it best not to argue and I wish you all the best. MarkMark Frank_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply