Where did fatty acids come from? Biology concerns itself with an observed physical process, not a data problem. Everything is data and we interpret it into information.
These people think because humans can interpret DNA into information…it is information to begin with and place an intelligence behind it. Leaves can fall off a tree, I can take that data translate it into information and derive a pattern. However, it does not mean there is an intelligence behind the pattern.
Properties of Life
You all know so you will not listen or learn anything. I read your replies and you are the reason we are held back.
You are as you allow yourself to be. We are limitless potential limited by your fear. We have an idea, gather supporting thoughts, formulate a desired out come and create. We succeed in learning the way until our desire is fulfilled. The article sounds legit. You need ingredients, law of attraction and shazam the outcome is a product. Among the remaining problems is the formation of the peptide and nucleotide bonds necessary for proteins and nucleic acids.
These bonds require the input of energy and the removal of water. Difficult to do underwater and even more difficult to do out of water where the damaging UV from the young Sun would have been the biggest hurdle. Moving on to polypeptides and oligonucleotides also needs attention. Plenty left to solve. Evolutionary trees cannot be constrained that way, but at least we know how it happened. If you walk away believing that a cell, or life, created itself, you are a fool.
In the spirit of clarity, Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It explains the diversity of life. Since James Tour is a synthetic organic chemist, this is why he feels he has the right to comment on the subject, but this is not his specialization. Yes people, god did it! Now let us stop studying this and move on, nothing to see here. Those books are literally arguing with Darwin.
He dead!!! They will always have a place to hide. Being able to do something in a lab and with lab materials does not mean it could have happened on earth naturally. God created life not chance.
Of course lab experiments mean it could happen in the rest of nature as well — the lab is part of nature. This goes nowhere near conclusively solving the mystery of the origin of life. Please avoid such hyperbole in the future. I agree with comment that Dr. James Tour top-tier scientist in synthetic organic chemistry and nano technology seems to have the best grip on all this.
His YouTube videos are stunning some very technical. I also agree that the title stinks. We are light years away. Just one aspect — there are 40, different lipids involved in a single cell wall each side of wall is different as well. Did they find and put those together just right?
Current models including protocell work I think uses ONE. Those who believe in religious fairy tales cannot resist hurling their faith-based ignorance against wondrous scientific findings like this. Possible scientific explanations for the dauntingly complex process of the origin of life are progressing nicely and it is wonderful to follow this unfolding, truly cosmic understanding. As Einstein told us — the purpose of science is to awaken cosmic religiosity in us.
From Complexity to Life: On the Emergence of Life and Meaning - Google Libri
You like that list, but those texts are religious. This sort of reasoning is why there are flat earthers. Scientists can also tell you what the Earth had for breakfast on June,10, 10, B. We actually observed the formation of the canyon created by the Mount Saint Helens eruption, the layered structure of which is identical to The Grand Canyon.
Even with the lack of understanding of these things and so much more, most scientists are sure beyond sure exactly how we got here and exactly how long it took.
Aeon for Friends
But I do have a problem with the arrogance and lack of the necessary observations with which the data is interpreted. If you gonna be wrong, at least be right about your own beliefs. I just rafted the Grand Canyon 7 days , and the layers of sandstone there are a mile deep — and look nothing like Mt. Helens lava. And if Earth is merely 10k years old, how do you explain this? Embedded fossils show this sandstone was laid down at the bottom of an inland sea over hundreds of millions of years, before the Colorado River cut through it.
And if Earth is merely 10k years old, how do you explain the long chain of extinct underwater volcanos in the North Pacific Ocean, ending at the Hawaiian Islands? See Google Earth, or Google Maps — satellite view Science has uncovered a deeper understanding of our universe than you suspect. He is surely no less stupid then previous others.
- Origin of Life?
- What If...II.
Just trying to catch attention. So many missing links in his stupid theory. Sadly for biologist evolution has become some kind of religion. There is no life without God and you will never find the answer of life ever. Biology is accepted science — your opinion has no impact on the area. You may want to educate yourself on the subject, why not take a course in biology at your nearest school? Why are the anti-intellectual religious twits trolling here? Science has no interest in your personal tender-ego goal of validating your pre-conceived religuous assumptions.
Go chant somewhere else. Further evolved life probably eats nascent life or kills it with excretions. We observe it now and the quickest way is to observationally test evolutionary trees from your laptop, it takes a few minutes if you know how. If you get a tree, and it is hard not to, it has tested evolution as a scientific observation. If you are referring to life from non-life. The conditions on primordial earth were vastly different from today.
Buy From Complexity To Life On The Emergence Of Life And Meaning 2002
It may not be possible given the current conditions. Furthermore, there are somethings we currently debate if they are alive or not. What a bunch of hogwash. There is a God, he is the creator. Call upon the name of Jesus and you shall spend eternity in his presence. You simply cannot prove origin of life when you must first create the environment in this way.