Claim: The blueprint for life generated in asteroids

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 27, 2022

Intelligent Design, Origin Of Life}

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

Using new analyses, scientists have just found the last two of the five informational units of DNA and RNA that had yet to be discovered in samples from meteorites. While it is unlikely that DNA could be formed in a meteorite, this discovery demonstrates that these genetic parts are available for delivery and could have contributed to the development of the instructional molecules on early Earth. The discovery, by an international team with NASA researchers, gives more evidence that chemical reactions in asteroids can make some of life’s ingredients, which could have been delivered to ancient Earth by meteorite impacts or perhaps the infall of dust.
News, “Could the Blueprint for Life Have Been Generated in Asteroids?” at NASA (April 26, 2022)

“Could have contributed to” … okay, keep talking.

Comments

I mean Paul Nelson still sticks to his statement that there is as yet no scientifically testable hypothesis of "Intelligent Design". I find Dr Nelson a more reliable representative of the ID movement.Fred Hickson_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

ET:
Fred Hickson: A testable hypothesis would be a start. ID has that.
What is that hypothesis?Fred Hickson_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

Included in #36 above by Martin_r. But to show the beat is still going on. Claims author has solved OOL. For those times when OOL comes up again and some will say "We don't know" to explain the current state of knowledge, this was sent to me today by Amazon.
Emergent Chemical Evolution: The Origin of Life Solved Paperback – February 28, 2018
About author
Eduardo Hernandez Eduardo Trisapient Hernandez is a polymath and has degrees in Chemistry, Physics, and Medicine. Before graduating high school he became a Junior Biomedical Investigator at the Institute of Animal Behavior at Rutgers University a program funded by the NIH. He spent over 12 years working for the company that built the Space Shuttle. Being a skeptic, knowing chemistry, and having so many years of "Real World" experience applying scientific knowledge everyday to solve very high-tech problems put him in the very unique- but necessary- position to solve the puzzle of the Origin of Life on Earth.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/198539846X?ref=em_1p_0_ti&ref_=pe_2313400_637351920jerry_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

Fred Hickson:
A testable hypothesis would be a start.
ID has that. Evolution by means of blind and mindless processes just has liars for support.ET_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

No idea why you mentioned my name in comment 68, Andrew. I didn't read the headline.Fred Hickson_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

JVL, Seversky, Hickson and Co. as to Darwinian brainwashing and why Darwinians choose such titles/headlines, they exactly know what they do, because: "Eight out of ten people only read the headline" https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/eight-ten-people-read-headline/1374722martin_r_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT}

most IDers would gladly grant you any and every building block, chemical, protein, compound, etc. that you want in any environment you want
Been done. Take a cell, any cell and one has all the necessary ingredients for a cell. Puncture it. Been proposed by ID proponents as a way to test.jerry_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

I think it has probably been said many many times, but most IDers would gladly grant you any and every building block, chemical, protein, compound, etc. that you want in any environment you want. It ain't gonna help them organize themselves into a living cell one little bit! But believers will be believers.tjguy_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: Can you point to some examples? The Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast has discussed such issues many, many times. As has Science for the People. Mostly I've picked up my information from places like that; I'd search for topics regarding science communication in the public sphere. Accepting that it’s easy enough – how would I go about finding one or more? Have you tried searching for 'scientist frustration with headlines'? Just found this which seems quite good: https://niemanreports.org/articles/listening-to-scientists-and-journalists/ That’s understandable but I would think that with enough complaints from the scientific community that they’d improve in that area. Why? They work like newspapers; what's sensational and controversial leads. The scientific community has absolutely no pressure they can put on newspapers and magazines. The universities want their researchers to get some press so they don't do much to fight things either. So, every so often you get another newspaper or NBC story about eating such and such will extend your life or some such when the actual research is much less dramatic and/or based on an extremely small study that should be considered only preliminary. Seriously, do you know how many health surveys are based on white males of university age? It's crazy. Things are improving but there are still researchers who go for the easy or quick result. So, their work might not be 'wrong' but it's pretty much only suggestive of more work that needs to be done. But that's not what a newspaper or a popular magazine wants to report. Real, long term scientific truths are rarely brought forth in a paper or experiment. All the easy stuff has been done so now we're working on the complicated stuff which means multiple studies and experiments which have to be combined and sometimes redone. But that doesn't sell newspapers. No one, except someone who works in the particular area, is going to track various and small results over years and years to try and get their head around some complicated topic.JVL_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

SA writes:
I would think that with enough complaints from the scientific community that they’d improve in that area.
The final arbiter of how useful any published scientific work is when it gets tested by other researchers. Results that can't be repeated don't stand.Fred Hickson_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

JVL
It’s quite easy to find scientists who get very, very annoyed at how their research gets reported in the non-scientific press.
Can you point to some examples?
It’s also easy enough to find scientists who have tried to get corrections published and have got nowhere.
Accepting that it's easy enough - how would I go about finding one or more?
Time or Discover magazine are ‘policed’ by their editorial staff who may or may not have a good science editor
That's understandable but I would think that with enough complaints from the scientific community that they'd improve in that area.Silver Asiatic_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: Manipulative journalists deceiving the public in order to prop-up the atheistic worldview, and the researchers themselves never objecting to the misleading titles or text (where they’re quoted). We don’t see the journals offering corrections and the science community doesn’t demand it. Do they not care about accuracy? It's quite easy to find scientists who get very, very annoyed at how their research gets reported in the non-scientific press. Sometimes, it's actually the fault of the pertinent university's press office. It's also easy enough to find scientists who have tried to get corrections published and have got nowhere. Lots of them have just given up trying to affect how the public hears about their work. BUT, there are also several examples that I am aware of of universities that have appointed professors to aid in the public understanding of science. It certainly seems that way. It also seems very convenient that the journal can publish misleading information that supports the OOL claim and it’s allowed to continue, article-after-article with nobody saying that these magazines are entirely corrupt in so doing. Journals and magazines are not the same thing. Anyway, you're pointing out the importance of journals having peer-review processes so that someone who has some knowledge of the pertinent field check to see if there are any obvious mistakes. So, Time or Discover magazine are 'policed' by their editorial staff who may or may not have a good science editor while academic journals generally ask other scientists with expertise in the topic at hand to see if what has been written make sense. And, it's pretty frequent that the peer-review process generates suggestions of how to improve explanations or fix problems.JVL_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

I have not seen a comment by bornagain77 recently. I miss his comments. I pray that he is well.Blastus_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

In the news items that Martin posted (which he found without effort -- meaning there are far better (worse) examples out there) - it's not just the "titles". The text of the news items themselves support the misleading claims. Plus, the researchers are often quoted. Let's put it this way, they don't say "we don't know". So what does that tell us about the materialist-science world in itself? Manipulative journalists deceiving the public in order to prop-up the atheistic worldview, and the researchers themselves never objecting to the misleading titles or text (where they're quoted). We don't see the journals offering corrections and the science community doesn't demand it. Do they not care about accuracy? It certainly seems that way. It also seems very convenient that the journal can publish misleading information that supports the OOL claim and it's allowed to continue, article-after-article with nobody saying that these magazines are entirely corrupt in so doing. Maybe the Biden Ministry of Disinformation can send some Federal agents there to make some arrests - right?Silver Asiatic_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

Asauber: I’ll take it for what it’s worth then. We just might do the same with your opinions.JVL_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

Jerry
I see no evidence of this in the world.
I will agree that people listen to the gaslighters. They also believe the word "creationist" is something to ridicule, although they don't know why. As long as some celebrities or comedians ridicule it, that's good enough. At the same time, I recognize anecdotal evidence in the other direction: Look at the customer reviews of Meyer's new book and Behe's latest. Years ago they'd be flooded by angry atheists with 1-star ratings who never read the book. Now its 90% positive. Just yesterday I looked at the whale evolution YouTube videos linked from another thread here. Those are not only devastating against evolution, but on a public form - so not exclusive ID - and the comments are 90% positive. So, while it's a small group supporting ID, it is not shrinking.Silver Asiatic_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

"According to me." FH, I'll take it for what it's worth then. Andrewasauber_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

@ Andrew According to me.Fred Hickson_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

I see no evidence of this in the world. A testable hypothesis would be a start.Fred Hickson_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

"Certainly justified in this case." FH, According to whom? Seversky? Sleepy Joe? Andre the Giant? Andrewasauber_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

JVL writes: I too am entitled to my opinion. Certainly justified in this case.Fred Hickson_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

Asauber: I didn’t think I was. I too am entitled to my opinion.JVL_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: People can learn what ID is and judge for themselves, and when they realize that the creationist/ID label is, Many ID proponents believe the undefined designer is the Christian God who, apparently, at the very least, intervened in the evolutionary process by 'creating' or causing to happen pertinent mutations. Some ID proponents seem to think that the designer did even more such as 'creating' and implementing new body plans. Which ever version of ID subscribed to you can't get new new designs into the web of life without some kind of physical implementation; something new has to be created. While the above are not the same as magic-ing new lifeforms out of thin air they do involve 'creating' or implementing something that would not happen (or would be extremely unlikely to happen) without intervention. I think that's why some refer to ID as a form of creationism. Something is created that didn't exist before.JVL_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

"I just thought you were being unnecessarily rude." JVL, I didn't think I was. Andrewasauber_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

Asauber: JVL, are you appealing to a common sense of morality with this? Just checking. Nope. I just thought you were being unnecessarily rude.JVL_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

People can learn what ID is and judge for themselves, and when they realize that the creationist/ID label is, indeed, gaslighting it only makes people distrust the evolutionary community even more.
I believe this is wishful thinking. I see no evidence of this in the world. Yes, there is a distinct minority that is familiar but not main line at all. I am just going by my associations. Even among religious people there is a reluctance to believe it. To them it means fringe.jerry_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

Jerry
Part of this gaslighting is to conflate creationism with ID. One will rarely see the distinction between the two in published articles.
True. They think they're being clever or they're going to shock people with the term creationist and cause ID to be ridiculed and dismissed on that basis alone. But all they're doing is revealing that they are willing to manipulate the truth and not make accurate statements or distinctions. People can learn what ID is and judge for themselves, and when they realize that the creationist/ID label is, indeed, gaslighting it only makes people distrust the evolutionary community even more.Silver Asiatic_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

"Let’s see if Kairosfocus calls you on your language and attitude." JVL, I am not above correction. ;) Andrew P.S. JVL, are you appealing to a common sense of morality with this? Just checking.asauber_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

It's time.jerry_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

Asauber: Now Sev’s Personal Butte-Kisser, evidently. ? You are entitled to your own, misinformed opinion. Let's see if Kairosfocus calls you on your language and attitude.JVL_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply