Claim: The blueprint for life generated in asteroids

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

ET:

Fred Hickson: A testable hypothesis would be a start. ID has that.

What is that hypothesis? Fred Hickson

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_637351920 jerry

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

No idea why you mentioned my name in comment 68, Andrew. I didn't read the headline. Fred Hickson

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/1374722 martin_r

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have not seen a comment by bornagain77 recently. I miss his comments. I pray that he is well. Blastus

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

Asauber: I’ll take it for what it’s worth then. We just might do the same with your opinions. JVL

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

"According to me." FH, I'll take it for what it's worth then. Andrew asauber

@ Andrew According to me. Fred Hickson

I see no evidence of this in the world. A testable hypothesis would be a start. Fred Hickson

"Certainly justified in this case." FH, According to whom? Seversky? Sleepy Joe? Andre the Giant? Andrew asauber

JVL writes: I too am entitled to my opinion. Certainly justified in this case. Fred Hickson

Asauber: I didn’t think I was. I too am entitled to my opinion. JVL

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

"I just thought you were being unnecessarily rude." JVL, I didn't think I was. Andrew asauber

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

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

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

"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

It's time. jerry

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

Sandy: they still keep in school books “evidences for evolution ” refuted 100 years ago. Is this criminality or not? Um, what particular 'evidences' are you thinking of? Haekel's drawings? (I may have spelled his name incorrectly.) I'm not saying school textbooks are perfect or even up-to-date. The real science is to be found in the scholarly publications. JVL

Good Little JVL, Now Sev's Personal Butte-Kisser, evidently. ;) Andrew asauber

When Dawkins ,Crick &co. tell you that appearence of design in living thing is an illusion and you should resist to this temptation of believing that :) you should realize it's about the ideology of atheism not about science. I think majority of atheists commenting here know that but just ignore the reality . Unfortunately their arguments are false and everyone know that. PS: they still keep in school books "evidences for evolution " refuted 100 years ago. Is this criminality or not? Sandy

Martin_r: PS: so if this is not a Darwinian brainwashing, why Darwinians always choose such titles ? I have no idea but pretty clearly there wouldn't be so many different articles from different times about different discoveries if the puzzle had been solved. As Seversky has pointed out, the actual content of the articles is always very, very qualified. If you choose to only respond to the titles then have you really understood the science behind the articles? Are you just having a moan 'cause you think there's some conspiracy to pull one over on the clearly stupid general public who just believe what they're told? Do you really have so little faith in the general public? They can be 'brainwashed' with the titles of academic articles in journals they never read or even know exist? JVL

Do engineers have something better to offer?

         "No one has a clue." Or how about         "We don't know how!" They would surely be accepted by editors of articles and textbooks. Regards to brainwashing - why do so many believe something that is obviously not true? Of course the current term is "gaslighting." . Part of this gaslighting is to conflate creationism with ID. One will rarely see the distinction between the two in published articles. jerry

Good Little Sev. Always running cover for the dYSfunKShunnel status quo. Andrew asauber

The researchers generally do not get to choose the titles of articles or press releases. If you read the text you'll find the claims are almost always qualified with "may Have" or "could have". Hernando published his book in 2018 and, despite the extravagant claims of the blurb, it doesn't seem to have taken the field of OOL research by storm, exactly. Do engineers have something better to offer? Seversky

JVL @35 you would not have picked that title, would you have picked these ones ? (a quick google search, took me few minutes): Science.org (2015) "Researchers may have solved origin-of-life conundrum" https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum or this one, from NASA again (2019): "NASA Study Reproduces Origins of Life on Ocean Floor" https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/863/nasa-study-reproduces-origins-of-life-on-ocean-floor/ or this one (2019) "Researchers Solve Puzzle of Origin of Life on Earth" https://scitechdaily.com/researchers-solve-puzzle-of-origin-of-life-on-earth/ or this one at NBCNEWS (2015) "Researchers May Have Solved 'Missing Link' Mystery in Origin of Life" https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/researchers-may-have-solved-missing-link-mystery-origin-life-n371891 or this one sounds great (2019) "The Origin of Life May Not Be as Coincidental as Scientists Once Thought" https://www.insidescience.org/news/origin-life-may-not-be-coincidental-scientists-once-thought or this one The origin of life: The conditions that sparked life on Earth https://researchoutreach.org/articles/origin-life-conditions-sparked-life-earth/ or even a whole book! (2018) Emergent Chemical Evolution: The Origin of Life Solved https://www.amazon.com/Emergent-Chemical-Evolution-Origin-Solved/dp/198539846X PS: so if this is not a Darwinian brainwashing, why Darwinians always choose such titles ? martin_r

Martin_r: If this isn’t brainwashing then i don’t know what is … Forgetting about the title for the moment (not one I would have picked) is there anything in the actual article that could be compared to 'brainwashing'? Also, the article is open access and anyone can read it for themselves and decide if what it says makes sense. In my mind brainwashing works when you limit access to information and discussions and stifle alternate points of view. That's not happening in this case. JVL

JVL, Seversky and Co. Darwinists do not brainwashing and misleading lay people ? REALLY ? So let's have a look at some DARWINIAN articles: ScienceDaily.com (FEBRUARY 2022) "How life came to Earth" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220210125828.htm HOW LIFE CAME TO EARTH ????? HOW LIFE CAME TO EARTH ????? HOW LIFE CAME TO EARTH ????? If this isn't brainwashing then i don't know what is ... Should I continue ? martin_r

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. The last two, Fred. ET

:) This is irrelevant. Some people don't understand what a code means. Asteroids don't change the fact that codes don't emerge randomnly. Wherever you see a code there is a mind around , even you don't see it. Lieutenant Commander Data

I see the NASA blurb just reports that cytosine and thymine molecules have been found in an asteroid sample. Fred Hickson

Jerry writes:

My observation of Seversky is that he almost never commits to anything. It’s more “No one knows” and where’s the information an intelligence did it? It more to irk then to take a position. Also it’s rare he answers a question from an ID commentator. So I was surprised when he challenged a comment made to him.

Pots and kettles, motes and beams. Fred Hickson

Jerry writes:

Now if only the anti ID people would advocate for the “I don’t know” answer or “ Have we ever said we think the OOL question has been answered or is close to being answered” in textbooks. We have them on record here.

Citations, Jerry, citations. Fred Hickson

Silver Asiatic: The floor is all yours, JVL. Perhaps instead of misinterpreting what I said (which had nothing to do with you personally at all), you’ll just share your views. Help us to get to know you better. If you don’t identify with the critique given (again, which is against an ideology and not you personally), feel free to explain why it doesn’t. Also, we shouldn’t have to work to extract this from you. It’s an open forum and here’s your chance to explain your views. I have expressed my views openly and honestly. And I will do again. Just ask me a question directly. Can you see and admit the problem with this? Okay. Let's just be clear and straight then shall we? If you want to know my or Seversky's opinion on something then you will ask about it directly. No guessing or assuming, yes? JVL

Asauber: We had an exchange once where you wouldn’t answer my question because I broke in the middle of a conversation you were having with someone else. It’s weird to me that you would deny this. Restate the question and give me a chance to answer it. On your terms. JVL

My observation of Seversky is that he almost never commits to anything. It’s more “No one knows” and where’s the information an intelligence did it? It more to irk then to take a position. Also it’s rare he answers a question from an ID commentator. So I was surprised when he challenged a comment made to him. jerry

JVL

When you get done with your nit picking why not get to know us.

The floor is all yours, JVL. Perhaps instead of misinterpreting what I said (which had nothing to do with you personally at all), you'll just share your views. Help us to get to know you better. If you don't identify with the critique given (again, which is against an ideology and not you personally), feel free to explain why it doesn't. Also, we shouldn't have to work to extract this from you. It's an open forum and here's your chance to explain your views.

Fine. Treat us that way then.

You seem upset about something. Could you explain what it is? Why did you not accept my statement that the critique is not directed at you?

Sometimes you do traipse into knee-jerk territory although, I think, you don’t really think that way.

You're saying something about me personally here. Maybe re-focus to the topic at hand, and away from the personalities?

I’m just asking you to make sure your post reflect the better angels of your nature.

Let's keep in mind that you jumped in on a comment I was making to Seversky and acted like I was responding to you. When I explained the problem with that you said it was "nit picking". But no, it's more than that because I didn't direct my comment to you at all. I said directly to Seversky that I was amazed by "his" comment. You then took it personally as against yourself. Can you see and admit the problem with this? Silver Asiatic

"My only ‘demand’ is that you don’t lump those you disagree with into some predefined camp where you assume what everyone you choose to put into that camp thinks." Not true, JVL, and you know it. We had an exchange once where you wouldn't answer my question because I broke in the middle of a conversation you were having with someone else. It's weird to me that you would deny this. Andrew asauber

Asauber: Based on your comments and responses, I don’t think it’s that simple. Sometimes you stonewall potential conversations by insisting that you get some of your own demands met first. My only 'demand' is that you don't lump those you disagree with into some predefined camp where you assume what everyone you choose to put into that camp thinks. Deal? I am happy to discuss the data and evidence. That I do not stonewall. Why you would say I do is weird. JVL

Silver Asiatic: Given you just lumped yourself in with Seversky as if the two of you are in lock-step, then your complaint that you aren’t being treated as individuals falls flat. When you get done with your nit picking why not get to know us. The target of the critique is the standard, atheistic story about OOL. It’s not directed at your own personal views. Fine. Treat us that way then. Sometimes you do traipse into knee-jerk territory although, I think, you don't really think that way. I'm just asking you to make sure your post reflect the better angels of your nature. JVL

From the Panda's Thumb post that Seversky linked to:

However, the experiment still supported a key idea: that the synthesis of these organic compounds did not require any kind of guiding hand, but would naturally emerge from unassisted chemical reactions. Furthermore, the authors of this paper argue that while it was not a good model of the _global_ atmosphere, it might still model local conditions in isolated areas.

Geoscientists today doubt that the primitive atmosphere had the highly reducing composition Miller used. However, the volcanic apparatus experiment suggests that, even if the overall atmosphere was not reducing, localized prebiotic synthesis could have been effective. Reduced gases and lightning associated with volcanic eruptions in hot spots or island arc-type systems could have been prevalent on the early Earth before extensive continents formed. In these volcanic plumes, HCN, aldehydes, and ketones may have been produced, which, after washing out of the atmosphere, could have become involved in the synthesis of organic molecules. Amino acids formed in volcanic island systems could have accumulated in tidal areas, where they could be polymerized by carbonyl sulfide, a simple volcanic gas that has been shown to form peptides under mild conditions.

So good work, Dr Miller!

When did we try to deceive people with the idea that OOL is almost solved? From the above:

localized prebiotic synthesis could have been effective could have become involved in the synthesis of organic molecules could have accumulated in tidal areas, where they could be polymerized localized prebiotic synthesis could have been effective

Actually, I'm not in favor of trying to settle past scores. If you guys want to affirm that OOL research is not close to solving the problem, of if you want to take (as against many materialists) the idea that "we don't know" - that's a step forward and should be accepted as such. Silver Asiatic

"If you want to know what I think you just have to ask." JVL, Based on your comments and responses, I don't think it's that simple. Sometimes you stonewall potential conversations by insisting that you get some of your own demands met first. Andrew asauber

JVL

Are you actually paying attention to what we, as individuals, are saying or are you just projecting all your ‘Darwinist’ tropes onto us?

Given you just lumped yourself in with Seversky as if the two of you are in lock-step, then your complaint that you aren't being treated as individuals falls flat. The target of the critique is the standard, atheistic story about OOL. It's not directed at your own personal views. Silver Asiatic

Seversky I don't have a copy of the book, but it detailed the M-U experiment. Why provide a failed test for students? Could it be that they were deceptively teaching that the experiment "brought us closer" to the origin of life? The fact is, they don't know if we're closer or farther. Here's an interesting comment from a guy called ... Seversky: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/david-coppedge-the-miller-urey-experiment-sparked-zombie-like-back-to-life/#comment-749285 He says:

the original experiment actually did better than expected

That sounds to me like "we're getting closer" - or at least, "closer than expected". That experiment is used as evidence to support OOL research. I consider that to be deceptive. Silver Asiatic

Silver Asiatic/15

They still use Miller-Urey in textbooks. I just read a new one with the same deceptive claims about “how close” to creating life that experiment was. BA77 probably has a huge database of OOL claims and “how close” we are, and how it’s “almost solved”. That’s a constant message.

Can you post the quote about Miller-Urey from that textbook? It would also be helpful if BA77 could provide a list of claims that the OOL issue is almost solved. Seversky

Silver Asiatic: That’s an amazing comment. You’ve been reading news items and excerpts from papers on this site for a long time. Did Seversky or I ever claim that we were close to answering the OoL question? I don't think so. Are you actually paying attention to what we, as individuals, are saying or are you just projecting all your 'Darwinist' tropes onto us? I'm happy to answer questions about my views and beliefs. If you want to know what I think you just have to ask. I know it's easier to make assumptions but, since you don't want us making assumptions about you, it would be nice if you treated us like individuals. JVL

They still use Miller-Urey in textbooks. I just read a new one with the same deceptive claims about "how close" to creating life that experiment was. BA77 probably has a huge database of OOL claims and "how close" we are, and how it's "almost solved". That's a constant message. Silver Asiatic

Seversky

How are we misleading people? Have we ever said we think the OOL question has been answered or is close to being answered?

That's an amazing comment. You've been reading news items and excerpts from papers on this site for a long time. Silver Asiatic

Martin_r: Then, Seversky, JVL and Co. might think, that the origin-of-life issue has been solved, or it is very close to be solved. You could have asked instead of just projecting your opinion of what you think we think onto us. Is that what being more scientific than us means? JVL

Now if only the anti ID people would advocate for the “I don’t know” answer or “ Have we ever said we think the OOL question has been answered or is close to being answered” in textbooks. We have them on record here. Somehow, I don’t think so. Question: how many different threads has some anti ID person made a comment and then not responded when challenged. Is it infinite? Just specify an “n” and I can guarantee you will shortly discover “n+1”. jerry

LoL! @ seversky- all OoL researchers NEED life to have arisen via blind and mindless processes! Theirs is a very heavily biased position. Natura can produce stones and yet nature cannot produce Stonehenge. Producing the building blocks of the building blocks of life is nowhere near producing a living organism. ET

The finding doesn’t provide a smoking gun as to whether life on Earth got an assist from space or came about exclusively in the prebiotic soup in the planet’s infancy. But completing the set of nucleobases that make up life today, in addition to other molecules found in the sample, gives scientists who are trying to understand the beginning of life more compounds to experiment with in the lab. “This is adding more and more pieces; meteorites have been found to have sugars and bases now,” Dworkin said. “It’s exciting to see progress in the making of the fundamental molecules of biology from space.”

It's fascinating that they were able to form in the relatively harsher conditions of outer space at all.

Why do they mislead lay people over and over again ? Then, Seversky, JVL and Co. might think, that the origin-of-life issue has been solved, or it is very close to be solved.

How are we misleading people? Have we ever said we think the OOL question has been answered or is close to being answered? Just to be clear, I think the OOL question is a long way from being answered. There are some tantalizing hints about what may have happened but I think we still have a long way to go. Perhaps engineers, who apparently understand these things much better than biologists, biochemists or physicists, could provide some insights that other less competent researchers have missed. Seversky

The blueprint for life is in the immaterial information that rules living organisms. ET

Why do they mislead lay people over and over again ?

Because the devil is a reality and without God they will reclaim "the god status." .Watch World Economic Forum/World Health Organisation/ people acting like gods even if nobody elected them , except devil. Sandy

It's easier for Darwinists to look to the heavens away from God to find answers for the origin of life, rather than look to the heavens and see God's work everywhere. BobRyan

Textbook example of Darwinian brainwashing ... Obviously, they have to do this, to permanently feed their followers with new food ... a silly question: why don't take these NASA geniuses these 'informational units', go to lab, and create life out of it ? Or, even better, why don't take these NASA geniuses a death cell (all life components are already there) and create life out of it again ? After 150 years of Darwinism, nothing changed.... NOTHING ... over and over again these desperate attempts ... What is wrong with this guys ? Normally, these are very smart people, no doubts, so what is wrong with them ? Why do they mislead lay people over and over again ? Then, Seversky, JVL and Co. might think, that the origin-of-life issue has been solved, or it is very close to be solved. martin_r

Borrowing from the alien bank to pay down the credit card. polistra

Nope. A bit is a bit is a bit and no more. Nonlin.org

way, way, way smaller than what would be needed But I thought DNA was clever and recombined in all sorts of clever ways to compensate for that? es58

Too bad the DNA, RNA cannot possibly be the blueprint of life. This is easily verified by simply measuring the size of the data in the DNA which is way, way, way smaller than what would be needed. Not even enough to hold your phone or car blueprint. And those are infinitely simpler than any organism. Nonlin.org

Nucleobases are naturally occurring compounds on earth - why should it be ‘exciting’ to find them in meteorites if they are here on earth already? Belfast