Climate change: sudden cooling (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, May 18, 2014, 03:08 (3820 days ago) @ romansh

First Romansh message: Your second point, I find wanting. When scientists reproduce what they think might occur in a 'natural' setting in a laboratory, to replicate quickly what might take million of years in reality, your claim that this is intelligently directed, this I find a little bizarre.-Not at all bizarre. What is designed in a lab is always intelligently designed. And the other issue is that if some brilliant science team produces a living form, there is no guarantee that is how it happened the first time. We cannot relive that history and will only know that we have found a method to create life from simple molecules. We know such a method exists, for life is here. Is there more than one method? It is possible. -> Romansh: I should point out my second point had evolution in mind rather than abiogenesis, which was really what you were addressing David.
> 
> Nevertheless the video I was previously pointing to is a really simple model, and does not seem unreasonable to me.
> 
> Romansh: So if we tested it in the lab and it worked ... would it count as a demonstration of abiogenesis? Bearing in mind scientists are directing the testwork?-Of course it would, but with the proviso stated above
> 
> The video I was referring to.-Your video I've just reviewed. Lots of acurate organic chemistry and lots of wishful thinking.The current RNA studies on RNAzymes have reached the correct replication rates of about 99+%, not accurate enough for life, but an improvement over the first 95% models, after searching thru trillions of possible molecules. Spontaneous polymerization? Yeah, but without water and with enzymes and where did they come from? You don't get organic reactions easily without heat and enzymes, and the latter are giant molecules. Simple lipid membranes, Jack Szoztak's work, brings to mind this quote from him in my book: "What is important in the origin of life field is understanding the transitions that led from chemistry to biology. So far, I have not seen that efforts to define life have contributed at all to that understanding." http://www.jbsdonline.com. -The video says that organic chemicals were readily available on early Earth. After the bombardment by planetismals, the Earth cooled down, and it is thought life could appear after 4 billion years ago. Early chemcial traces of life start at about 3.6 billion years ago, based on Australian and Greenland findings. Basically at 4 billion years lava, rocks and some water. Some organic material arrived by meteorite. How did the video author know that organic material was plentiful? Meteorite analysis, Murchison for example, have shown only eight essential amino acids, not 20. All living amino acids are left handed. Meteorite amino acids are 53% left and 47% right in a study last year. All Ribose molecules in life are right handed, facts the video did no discuss. I repeat: after 60+ years of work we only know what does not work. To study this subject thoroughly start with Robert Shapiro's "Origins", 1986. His last thoughts were in SciAm in 2007 when he proposed an inorganic chemical/energy cycle as the best probable beginning, shortly before his death. And he was an abiogenesis believer.-In conclusion, don't accept videos with beautiful symphonic and operatic musical background without deeply researching the subject yourself. OOL is a vital piece of the evidence in discussing agnoticism or theism. And it still looks miraculous to Paul Davies, who is now is sounding more and more like a diest.-And finally from the video, how does information appear out of nowhere? A code suddenly invents its own information? Poppycock!