Top Ten Cheats in "Monumental" Origin of Life Research
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 04. 2024
- A Washington Post headline recently declared that a "monumental experiment suggests how life on earth may have started." The reality, however, is far more sobering. In this episode of ID the Future, host Eric Anderson sits down with accomplished medical engineer and origin of life author, Robert Stadler, to discuss what this new research actually shows and the relevance to abiogenesis.
Enjoy more episodes and access show notes for every interview at idthefuture.com. - Hudba
They've demonstrated that the process requires very careful design and fine tuning.
Researchers haven't even been able to build a self-replicating LEGO model. Researchers haven't been able to build a self-replicating _ANYTHING._
Sigh….. they technically have currently we have robots building robots.
So because we haven’t done something….
Preposterous!! are you trying to say that mindless, random, natural processes of an early primordial earth was smarter than our genius scientists by creating life in such an impossible environment back then?
Absurd!!
😊
Feel free to look up any of the following papers. All of which show that you are wrong and either a liar or too incompetent to judge their research take your pick.
“Highly Efficient Self-Replicating RNA Enzymes”
“A self-replicating ligase ribozyme”
"Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme"
“Spontaneous Network Formation Among Cooperative RNA Replicators”
You have no idea what you are talking about. Scientists publish papers about their research, you should try reading some of it.
Feel free to read any of the following papers that show you are incorrect.
“Highly Efficient Self-Replicating RNA Enzymes”
“A self-replicating ligase ribozyme”
"Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme"
“Spontaneous Network Formation Among Cooperative RNA Replicators”
this all goes back to Miller-Urey (1953), who did a great experiment which produces 99% poisionous sludge, 1% amino acids, completely mixed L- and R- form, so biologically hopeless, in fact actually poisonous to the formation of normal L-only aminos in real life, so, 100% poison actually in total...
Not to mention that they INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED THE EQUIPMENT USED. They used sophisticated methods to separate the amino acids they could.
@@josephthybrother9534
What??? They CHEATED? 😂😂😂😂 Not a naturalist! Miller would NEVER do such a thing! Sarcasm intended!
You do understand part of science is about trial and error? You have to start somewhere
@@josephthybrother9534that doesn’t take away from the idea of what they were trying to do.
Well you got one thing right the experiment produced amino acids. This was groundbreaking because it demonstrated that organic molecules necessary for life could be synthesized under conditions thought to resemble those of early Earth. Meaning it supported hypotheses about the chemical origins of life through natural processes.
Describing the non-amino acid products as “poisonous sludge” shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. The experiment resulted in a variety of organic molecules, including formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide, and others, which are toxic to current life forms but were crucial in the context of abiotic synthesis and prebiotic chemistry. These compounds are considered key intermediates in the synthesis of amino acids and other vital organic molecules.
The experiment produced racemic mixtures of amino acids, and while life on Earth primarily uses L-amino acids, the presence of D-amino acids in the experiment does not negate its significance. The formation of amino acids under prebiotic conditions is a critical first step.
The question of how exactly homochirality arose is still an area of active research, but several hypotheses and subsequent experiments offer plausible mechanisms. It is now less a question of is it possible and more about which one specifically.
Describing the entire output of the experiment as “100% poison” is just a lie. Early Earth conditions and the lack of existing biological life meant that these compounds were not “poisonous” in the way they would be to current forms of life. Instead, they could have contributed to further chemical reactions that led to more complex molecules and eventually to the first life forms. I honestly don’t blame you for being so misinformed, the people and organizations you trust to spoon feed you a world view have to keep you uninformed about stuff like Miller-Urey. Read the paper before you try to criticize it next time.
IF life evolved from natural, inherent, rules based processes, then it would be ridiculously easy to map out. Creating life would be akin to growing crystals.
Now imagine that someone is looking at a Tickle Me Elmo and they're trying to understand how it came to be.
Also imagine that this someone has decided that the Tickle Me Elmo came about by natural, inherent, rules based processes.
How much progress would this person make in explaining the origin of Tickle Me Elmo?
Natural processes are pretty basic. There's charge, mass, and velocity. Essentially, what does it stick to, how much inertia does it have, and how fast is it going? From these first principles it's measuring and doing the math.
If what we're trying to figure out isn't readily explainable by measuring and calculating, then we're dealing with something metaphysical. Or as the secular kiddies call it, "emergent."
Only an utter blithering nincompoop would ever try to argue that Tickle Me Elmo occurred naturally, through natural processes.
How much more foolish is it to look at something orders of magnitude more complex than Tickle Me Elmo and declare as fact that that thing arose naturally?
Terrible analogies. That’d be like me saying if god created the universe I should be able to make a universe out of Lego’s and if I can’t right now then there is no god. It’s just not an argument and only a nincompoop would make it.
Beautiful talk! Many thanks I want to give 1000 likes!
I never heard that point before about needing two identical copies at the very start, and one needs to be unfolded, genius point!
Yet another unsurmountable chicken or egg scenario for OOL.
Why do some people have such a fervent, all-consuming faith that life magically popped out of chemicals?
awesome _breakdown_ XD thank you Rob!
Great talk that gives meat to the bones.
The Creator is a Person.
Replication implies forethought.
Who is Prof Dave? Is that the same Dave, a utube influencer, that tangled with Dr Tour?
Yes.
Yes, probably.
Yes, "Professor" Dave, the guy with no advanced degree in anything, lying & claiming titles he hasn't earned to impress the gullible
Yeah. Poor clueless Dave.
@@KenJackson_USyou should go read the papers he cited, might be more informative than dr. Tour rambling in circles.
It will never cease to amaze me how confidently some people talk about things they don’t understand at all.
Evolutionists be dumb
You mean like you talking about science?
@@jacob.tudragensI never claimed to be any sort of authority. However, when your charlatans say things that are wrong I am going to point it out. If you think I’m wrong about anything let me know. I’d be more than happy to reevaluate the evidence and change my mind if proven wrong.
@@Shoerandomcanoe Hi there, maybe you could read the article they are talking about to make sure those 'charlatans' (as you seem somehow confidently to call them. For what reason, by the way?...) actually says the truth ;-)
@@Nicolas-gl7mk why would I read a news article about the paper when I can read the paper. Furthermore, why would they respond to an article about the paper and not the original publication? So that they don’t have to address the actual chemistry. They know people like you won’t go find the original paper and read it.
Yes I confidently called them charlatans, because they are either deliberately lying about well understood processes or they are so ridiculously uninformed that speaking about this authoritatively is irresponsible.
Go read the paper. Then look at their critiques. You will see that nothing they say is substantive. But hey maybe I’m wrong so offer some critiques of the original publication and we’ll talk about it.
As always ool 'research' is a money thing.
Wow, trying to demonstrate that life came about naturally by using Intelligent Design.
But...but...but...RNA WORLD!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
They are clueless.
where are the atheist peers who should be discrediting such junk science?
They would lose all NSF funding if they were to discredit this junk science. So they stay quiet.
Oh lookey. The churches with the empty pews are attacking the churches that are doubling every year. Again. 😅