Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Origin of life: New model may explain emergence of self-replication on early Earth

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
schematic drawing of new theory/Maslov and Tkachenko

From ScienceDaily:

One question of the origin of life in particular remains problematic: what enabled the leap from a primordial soup of individual monomers to self-replicating polymer chains? A new model proposes a potential mechanism by which self-replication could have emerged. It posits that template-assisted ligation, the joining of two polymers by using a third, longer one as a template, could have enabled polymers to become self-replicating. More.

Not again. Yawn. Isn’t this a point where we should be asking fundamentally different questions?

For example:

When Charles Darwin published his seminal On the Origin of the Species in 1859, he said little about the emergence of life itself, possibly because, at the time, there was no way to test such ideas. His only real remarks on the subject come from a later letter to a friend, in which he suggested a that life emerged out of a “warm little pond” with a rich chemical broth of ions. Nevertheless, Darwin’s influence was far-reaching, and his offhand remark formed the basis of many origins of life scenarios in the following years.

Yes. And all were a waste of time. See Maybe if we throw enough models at the origin of life… some of them will stick? None did.

So who cares what Darwin thought anyway? Has anyone ever thought of challenging this crap on an evidence basis? Or is he the deity in whose name these guys fight?

Today, it is widely believed (though by no means universally accepted) that at some point in history, an RNA-based world dominated the earth. But how it got there — and whether there was a simpler system before it — is still up for debate. Many argue that RNA is too complicated to have been the first self-replicating system on earth, and that something simpler preceded it.

RNA-peptide world?

Like we said before, if we really wanted them to fail, we’d be sure to encourage them to keep on trying this stuff. But curiously, we aren’t the ones doing so.

See also: Welcome to “RNA world,” the five-star hotel of origin-of-life theories

and

Why origin of life is just a grantsman job at present

Here’s the abstract:

Self-replicating systems based on information-coding polymers are of crucial importance in biology. They also recently emerged as a paradigm in material design on nano- and micro-scales. We present a general theoretical and numerical analysis of the problem of spontaneous emergence of autocatalysis for heteropolymers capable of template-assisted ligation driven by cyclic changes in the environment. Our central result is the existence of the first order transition between the regime dominated by free monomers and that with a self-sustaining population of sufficiently long chains. We provide a simple, mathematically tractable model supported by numerical simulations, which predicts the distribution of chain lengths and the onset of autocatalysis in terms of the overall monomer concentration and two fundamental rate constants. Another key result of our study is the emergence of the kinetically limited optimal overlap length between a template and each of its two substrates. The template-assisted ligation allows for heritable transmission of the information encoded in chain sequences thus opening up the possibility of long-term memory and evolvability in such systems. Open access – Alexei Tkachenko and Sergei Maslov. Spontaneous emergence of autocatalytic information-coding polymers. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 2015 DOI: 10.1063/1.4922545

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
It’s all science, Jerad. Science has shown that basic biological reproduction is IC. They would have a better chance showing Stonehenge was a product of geological forces.
Again, a lot of people disagree with IC conclusion.
As if you know. What is their model and testable hypotheses? What is the model and testable hypotheses?
I haven't read the article or talked to the researchers. Why don't you write them if you're so interested?
The researchers are wasting their time. Dion’t you think research should be used for something helpful rather that futile?
YOU think they're wasting their time. A lot of people disagree with you. Come up with your own research and get to work.
ID’s research is in the detection and study of intelligent design. And all scientists are doing it. Even the researchers looking into the OoL are doing it as they are confirming ID with every test.
Again, a lot of people disagree with you. Why don't you write a book about all this, get it published and see what the reviews say?
It’s not just funding. More ID related scientific research will be accomplished when there are more credentialled ID scientists – like Kirk Durston … http://p2c.com/sites/default/f.....Myers_.pdf But it will take a while. Darwinian-ideology has a strong-hold on education and until that lightens up, it will remain difficult for pro-ID scientists to study and find work.
Whatever. Find some money, do some research, get it published. Two hundred years ago there was NO funding for evolutionary research now there's lots. The notion of intelligent design has been around a lot longer than that so it should have a head-start when gaining academic support. Time to get cracking in the lab eh? The Discovery Institute funds a research facility, where are their peer-reviewed publications? What is there research agenda? Why aren't they sponsoring conference to share results with others?SLeBrun
July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
SLe
Surely ‘unguided’ is the base-line assumption since they’re trying to see if it’s possible without a designer . . .
You're right - that's the baseline, but that assumption is false. The assumption has to be supported by evidence, but the researchers haven't done that. They need to show how unguided elements can produce order.
But these researchers are assuming NO DESIGN and are proceeding accordingly. What’s the problem?
They're contradicting themselves. They assume NO DESIGN. Then they say, "ok, we'll start our research with a designed process to prove NO DESIGN". That's a contradiction. Notice this in your own assumption ...
Isn’t that what the research is doing, trying to figure out how a ‘process’ could have arisen via unguided chemical and physical processes?
You're starting with chemical and physical PROCESSES. As I said, ordered processes are evidence of design. Disagree? Then show how chaos can produce processes or systems? You can't merely start with integrated systems with ordered properties (chemical and physical) and then say all of that shows NO DESIGN. That's cheating and incoherent. You have to start with no design, no order, no systems -- just random chaos. Otherwise, you're taking designed elements and actual integrated systems as your starting point. ID researchers could try to create ordered systems out of randomness all day long. Just trying to model random chaos without design is virtually impossible, but even so -- how long does the experiment have to last?Silver Asiatic
July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
SLeB
If something like a third of the US population rejects unguided evolution then surely there is money to fund ID research. Come up with a research agenda and start talking to some funding agencies. Talk to The Templeton Foundation. And Ken Ham’s organisation. Talk to the tele-evangelists who raise millions of dollars every month, see if they’ll fund some research.
It's not just funding. More ID related scientific research will be accomplished when there are more credentialled ID scientists - like Kirk Durston ... http://p2c.com/sites/default/files/documents/blogs/kirk/Devious-Distortions-Durston-or-Myers_.pdf But it will take a while. Darwinian-ideology has a strong-hold on education and until that lightens up, it will remain difficult for pro-ID scientists to study and find work.Silver Asiatic
July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
SLe:
These researchers clearly don’t accept that and are trying to see if they can account for things via unguided processes.
It's all science, Jerad. Science has shown that basic biological reproduction is IC. They would have a better chance showing Stonehenge was a product of geological forces.
Well, the researchers and the people paying for them disagree with you.
As if you know. What is their model and testable hypotheses? What is the model and testable hypotheses? The researchers are wasting their time. Dion't you think research should be used for something helpful rather that futile? ID's research is in the detection and study of intelligent design. And all scientists are doing it. Even the researchers looking into the OoL are doing it as they are confirming ID with every test.Virgil Cain
July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
They don’t have a model. They don’t have any testable hypotheses. They don’t have any idea on how to proceed. All that means it is a waste of time, money and other resources.
Well, the researchers and the people paying for them disagree with you. You're free to pursue a different line of enquiry. There must be enough people who agree with you who'd be willing to stump up some cash. Is anyone trying that? No one is stopping the ID community from raising funds and doing their own research. So I don't understand the problem. If something like a third of the US population rejects unguided evolution then surely there is money to fund ID research. Come up with a research agenda and start talking to some funding agencies. Talk to The Templeton Foundation. And Ken Ham's organisation. Talk to the tele-evangelists who raise millions of dollars every month, see if they'll fund some research.SLeBrun
July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
You do realize that biological reproduction is irreducibly complex and nature has no chance at producing it.
These researchers clearly don't accept that and are trying to see if they can account for things via unguided processes.
Again it’s like someone trying to find a natural cause for Stonehenge. Would you fund such a project?
In your opinion but clearly not in the opinion of the researchers or those paying their salaries. I still don't get the problem. Except that you disagree with the assumptions. Stonehenge is designed AND BUILT by the designers (gotta have designers and implementers) but basic self-replicating life . . . let's find out. Unless you've already made up your mind. Anyway, it's no skin off your nose so why complain?
How many times do we have to randomly shake a box, filled with watch parts, to be convinced of the fact that a functional watch is not produced that way?
You don't have to do anything. And NO ONE is saying it's that easy. I still don't get the problem. You seem terribly offended that a lot of researchers and funders are trying to determine if unguided chemical and physical processes are sufficient to bring about self-replicating life on earth. That's what science is about isn't it? Seeing what works and what doesn't work?SLeBrun
July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
SLe:
But these researchers are assuming NO DESIGN and are proceeding accordingly. What’s the problem?
They don't have a model. They don't have any testable hypotheses. They don't have any idea on how to proceed. All that means it is a waste of time, money and other resources. Again it’s like someone trying to find a natural cause for Stonehenge. Would you fund such a project?Virgil Cain
July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
My objection is that they haven’t questioned their own assumption of what an ‘unguided process’ is. That’s a very important point. If they questioned that assumption carefully, they would admit that life could not be the results of unguided processes.
How do you know they haven't? Because they haven't ended up agreeing with you? What is wrong with the ideas being developed and to look for evidence of them being true?
But more simply, they could show how unguided events can create ‘processes’. ID has no need to test that because it’s contradictory.
Isn't that what the research is doing, trying to figure out how a 'process' could have arisen via unguided chemical and physical processes? If they fail, they fail. Why not check it out?
So, before offering speculations, the researchers should state upfront that the processes give evidence of having been designed by intelligence. Failing that, they lack the intellectual depth to understand the issue. Or perhaps they’re dishonest, which is a possibility also.
Isn't it better NOT to make assumptions about the processes and see if a designer is strictly necessary? I still do not understand your objection. You might not choose to do the research that way but there's nothing wrong with it. See if the laws of physics and chemistry that we already have are sufficient to develop self-replicating life. It's a scientific exploration surely. Trying to assume as little as possible about the causes that are present.
In either case, the assumptions have to be worked out and explained first, before any kind of speculation like this one could be offered.
Surely 'unguided' is the base-line assumption since they're trying to see if it's possible without a designer . . . You want to accept design before it's proven! It seems to me. But surely it has to be established above and beyond all possible doubt and that hasn't happened yet. At least not to most researchers satisfaction. I can understand you thinking the research is pointless but if someone DOES NOT accept that design has been detected then it's a valid exploration. You think certain aspects show signs of design which means your research would follow a different path. I have yet to see what kind of path that would be but it would be different. But these researchers are assuming NO DESIGN and are proceeding accordingly. What's the problem?SLeBrun
July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
SLeBrun: I’m finding this discussion baffling. We all want to know the truth so what’s wrong with checking out to see if unguided processes are sufficient?
How many times do we have to randomly shake a box, filled with watch parts, to be convinced of the fact that a functional watch is not produced that way?Box
July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
SLe:
What the comment about Stonehenge has to do with the thread is beyond me.
Stonehenge is a simple rock formation compared to a living organism and nature makes rocks yet it can't even produce Stonehenge. It shows that nature is very, very limited. You do realize that biological reproduction is irreducibly complex and nature has no chance at producing it.
Well, I guess not everyone accepts your claim of an irreducibly complex system.
It is science's claim and the people who doubt it don't have anything to explain it. No models, no testable hypotheses, nothing. Again it's like someone trying to find a natural cause for Stonehenge. Would you fund such a project?Virgil Cain
July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
Don’t forget your ten foot pole when you leave.
Are you willing to concede that you might be wrong? It is possible that unguided processes are all that is necessary?
It is dead easy: Brownian motion. That explains everything. Stones collide in space, hence organic molecules, a little bit of Brownian motion and bingo! we get amino acids, then a little more Brownian motion and we get proteins and finally man. Everything reduces to molecular collisions. No meaning is needed. Why bother!
I don't understand you. No one says it's that easy. Are you also saying you've already made up your mind and that the research is useless and doomed to fail? Are you willing to accept that you might be wrong? I'm finding this discussion baffling. We all want to know the truth so what's wrong with checking out to see if unguided processes are sufficient?SLeBrun
July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
SLe
They’re trying to figure out a way for it to happen via unguided processes so I don’t understand your objection.
My objection is that they haven't questioned their own assumption of what an 'unguided process' is. That's a very important point. If they questioned that assumption carefully, they would admit that life could not be the results of unguided processes. But more simply, they could show how unguided events can create 'processes'. ID has no need to test that because it's contradictory. So, before offering speculations, the researchers should state upfront that the processes give evidence of having been designed by intelligence. Failing that, they lack the intellectual depth to understand the issue. Or perhaps they're dishonest, which is a possibility also. In either case, the assumptions have to be worked out and explained first, before any kind of speculation like this one could be offered.Silver Asiatic
July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
It is dead easy: Brownian motion. That explains everything. Stones collide in space, hence organic molecules, a little bit of Brownian motion and bingo! we get amino acids, then a little more Brownian motion and we get proteins and finally man. Everything reduces to molecular collisions. No meaning is needed. Why bother!EugeneS
July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
Don't forget your ten foot pole when you leave.Upright BiPed
July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT
Your think someone needs to test if Crick’s adapter hypothesis is correct?
Nothing stopping anyone from doing that.
Hilarious. I’m the one willing to put my ability on the line to convince you that translation requires IC, and in turn you try to spin that around to where I have a problem with tests.
Well, I guess we'll see what the researchers come up with. Obviously they disagree with your contention of an irreducibly complex precursor. Or they're willing to try and fail. Or succeed. We'll see.SLeBrun
July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT
Well, I guess not everyone accepts your claim of an irreducibly complex system. Or they just want to test to see if that’s true. What wrong with that? Or have you already decided that you’re right and they’re wrong
On the contrary, I’ve found very few people who want to challenge the notion that translation is irreducibly complex. The test is short and doesn’t end well. It's much easier to just ignore it.
I think it’s perfectly okay and well within acceptable scientific procedures to doubt some someone else claims and to test to see if they’re correct.
Your think someone needs to test if Crick’s adapter hypothesis is correct?
You seem to think there’s a problem with that.
Hilarious. I’m the one willing to put my ability on the line to convince you that translation requires IC, and in turn you try to spin that around to where I have a problem with tests. Good grief.Upright BiPed
July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT
The researchers need to develop some level of credibility in order to be taken seriously.
By your standards or the standards of their peers?
Unfortunately, their failure to question their own assumptions about unguided outputs only kills off what little credibility they have.
They're trying to figure out a way for it to happen via unguided processes so I don't understand your objection.
I can’t speak for the others but in my opinion scientists trying to explain the origin of life by purely natural causes do nothing more than wasting time and resources on a cockamamy idea. It’s like trying to sit in the corner of a circular room…
So, you have already decided.
That should be easy to test. They surely know the “certain environmental conditions”, right? Just create those in a lab environment. Then add the small polymers. Then cycle the changes. Self-replicating cells will emerge, supposedly.
Perhaps someone is doing that now. Perhaps the folks at the Discovery Institute would fund that research.
The paper in question doesn’t even address the issues at hand. It has been understood for more than half a century that the translation of information from DNA requires an irreducible system that is neither determined by local dynamics, nor its is derived from physical law. Yet, over and over again we hear something like…
Well, I guess not everyone accepts your claim of an irreducibly complex system. Or they just want to test to see if that's true. What wrong with that? Or have you already decided that you're right and they're wrong?
I am wondering, if I can demonstrate to you that the translation of genetic information requires an irreducibly complex system of objects — and thus must appear in the record prior to the heterogenous living cell — will you say “Hmmm, how interesting. Maybe they do have something there” or will you simply do all that you can do to deny and sabotage the lessons from Crick, von Neumann, Polanyi, Nirenberg, Pattee, and others?
I think it's perfectly okay and well within acceptable scientific procedures to doubt some someone else claims and to test to see if they're correct. You seem to think there's a problem with that.SLeBrun
July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT
It's like whizzing on a star... - MungMung
July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
It’s like trying to sit in the corner of a circular room…
It's like trying to find gold in a silver mine. It's like trying to drink whiskey... from a bottle of wine. --Elton Johnmike1962
July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT
Silver: Ok, it’s best not to actually try it in the lab because it works a lot better when you use your imagination. :-)
Hehehe. Well put.mike1962
July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
I'm going with deny, deny, deny. It's the American way!Mung
July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
I’ve seen no one comment on this blog to the effect of: Hmmm, how interesting. Maybe they do have something there. Let’s see what they come up with.
The paper in question doesn't even address the issues at hand. It has been understood for more than half a century that the translation of information from DNA requires an irreducible system that is neither determined by local dynamics, nor its is derived from physical law. Yet, over and over again we hear something like... Through cyclic changes in environmental conditions that induce complementary strands to come together and then fall apart repeatedly, a self-sustaining collection of hybridized, self-replicating polymers able to encode the blueprints for life could emerge. Under what principle of empiricism are we to ignore demonstrated facts over long periods of time? - - - - - - - - - - - - I am wondering, if I can demonstrate to you that the translation of genetic information requires an irreducibly complex system of objects -- and thus must appear in the record prior to the heterogenous living cell -- will you say "Hmmm, how interesting. Maybe they do have something there" or will you simply do all that you can do to deny and sabotage the lessons from Crick, von Neumann, Polanyi, Nirenberg, Pattee, and others?Upright BiPed
July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
This is the claim:
That is, under certain environmental conditions, small polymers could be driven to bond to longer complementary polymer template strands, holding the short strands in close enough proximity to each other that they could fuse into longer strands. Through cyclic changes in environmental conditions that induce complementary strands to come together and then fall apart repeatedly, a self-sustaining collection of hybridized, self-replicating polymers able to encode the blueprints for life could emerge.
That should be easy to test. They surely know the "certain environmental conditions", right? Just create those in a lab environment. Then add the small polymers. Then cycle the changes. Self-replicating cells will emerge, supposedly.
Their model switches between "day" phases, where individual polymers float freely, and "night" phases, where they join together to form longer chains via template-assisted ligation.
It's difficult to simulate "day" and "night" in a lab? Ok, you need a few billion years for some unmentioned reason. The very same concept can't be accelerated to cycling conditions occuring thousands of times per day? Ok, it's best not to actually try it in the lab because it works a lot better when you use your imagination. :-)Silver Asiatic
July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
Like I said, it sounds like some of you have already decided.
Since there's still only hypotheses and no convincing evidence whatsoever after decades of research there's no scientific valid reason not to, especially when the opposite (complex biological/mechanical systems have to be built and don't just appear naturally) is practically self-evident. Not deciding or deciding for the natural origin of life is because of psychological/philosophical/ideological/theological reasons, certainly not scientific ones.
What the comment about Stonehenge has to do with the thread is beyond me.
It is very simple. Stonehenge is obviously a man-made (=built) structure and nobody with a clear mind would doubt that or much less attempt to explain its existence with natural processes. However, the same people who would send anyone who would try that to the looney bin are often entirely convinced that life as we know it came to existence by purely natural processes albeit the fact that even the simplest forms of life are many orders of magnitude more complex than Stonehenge. I can't speak for the others but in my opinion scientists trying to explain the origin of life by purely natural causes do nothing more than wasting time and resources on a cockamamy idea. It's like trying to sit in the corner of a circular room... SebestyenSebestyen
July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
SLe
Anything comes from the un-directed camp: decry it and call it shit.
The researchers need to develop some level of credibility in order to be taken seriously. Unfortunately, their failure to question their own assumptions about unguided outputs only kills off what little credibility they have. From the ID perspective, we play by their (the undirecteds) rules. Using their own research we can see the gaping holes in their claims as well as outright contradictions. Who in the undirected camp even admits how absurdly wrong they have been? OOL claims have been going forward for decades ... now we finally have a true one? I read the posted article and it's almost laughable. Supposedly, a cyclical environment (like night following day) is enough to create a self-replicating process. If there was something where we could really say "Hmm, how interesting", I think we would.Silver Asiatic
July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
Nonsense. We already examined all the data we need to examine. The natural origin of life hypothesis has already failed the test of logic and evidence many times over. It’s a stupid hypothesis.
Like I said, it sounds like some of you have already decided.
RNA is too unstable to be of any use in any origin of life scenario. But I understand that “they” need something and RNA is their best hope. Unfortunately RNA doesn’t offer any hope, not even to the hopeless.
We are also saying that there isn’t any coherent explanation for the natural formation of Stonehenge. And no matter how many times geologists show that the stones used were made by nature no one is fool enough to leap to the inference nature made Stonehenge.
What the comment about Stonehenge has to do with the thread is beyond me. But, again, it sounds like someone has already made up their mind.
Hence, back to the topic, let them have all the self-replicating polymers they want. Give them the whole toolbox and the raw materials, then wait and see. Just don’t hold your breath, lest you turn blue and the SETI folks think you’re one of the ETs they’re looking for.
I've seen no one comment on this blog to the effect of: Hmmm, how interesting. Maybe they do have something there. Let's see what they come up with. But you all INSIST that that's how everyone should approach ID. "It's a viable alternative, let's see how it pans out." You guys have a double standard. Anything comes from the un-directed camp: decry it and call it shit. On the other hand if it's somehow connected to design: see, look, we were right. This blog isn't about science, it's about cheering on one (vague) point of view. Which is fine, go for it, it's not my blog. But at least be honest. You're not really attempting to consider all the data and evidence. Many of you have already decided what is true. And that's not how science progresses. Is it?SLeBrun
July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
What's the big deal? I would give them all the self-replicating polymers they want to begin with. Then what? Here's a potential analogy: The director of the engineering design software development project I worked on for a quarter century is a brilliant engineer. Without his knowledge, experience, sharp mind and clear leadership, the software would not have been as successful as it was. I was just a mediocre programmer in the development team working under that guy's direction. However, let's assume a different scenario, where the best software developers of the world would have gotten together and tried to produce a similar product, without the direction of my former boss. What would have happened? For sure I wouldn't have been in that picture. But what about the product? Would it have been as successful? I doubt it. What do you think? There's something special about guidance, direction, etc. that's priceless. Other things can be purchased with VISA or MasterCard. Hence, back to the topic, let them have all the self-replicating polymers they want. Give them the whole toolbox and the raw materials, then wait and see. Just don't hold your breath, lest you turn blue and the SETI folks think you're one of the ETs they're looking for.Dionisio
July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
SLe:
You guys are always complaining that there is no coherent explanation of how self-recplicstion arose via unguided processes and then when someone shows work they’re doing towards figuring that out you just dismiss it as pointless and stupid.
We are also saying that there isn't any coherent explanation for the natural formation of Stonehenge. And no matter how many times geologists show that the stones used were made by nature no one is fool enough to leap to the inference nature made Stonehenge.Virgil Cain
July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
RNA is too unstable to be of any use in any origin of life scenario. But I understand that "they" need something and RNA is their best hope. Unfortunately RNA doesn't offer any hope, not even to the hopeless.Virgil Cain
July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
SLeBrun:
Sounds like a lot of people have already decided what is true. Is that being open to the data and the research?
Nonsense. We already examined all the data we need to examine. The natural origin of life hypothesis has already failed the test of logic and evidence many times over. It's a stupid hypothesis.Mapou
July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply