I see the in tray is full again …
First, the short response to your post … HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Now, I’ll cover in detail below, why I responded in that manner. Strap yourself in, Looby Loo, you’re in for a hard ride.
No kidding? I see this all the time from mythology fanboys.
This isn’t a matter of “belief”, it’s a matter of evidentially supported postulates. In support of that statement, I point you at this thread I devoted to the subject. If you’re going to apply proper due diligence to the topic, you will not only READ the opening post therein in full (slowly if need be), but take note of the eighty two peer reviewed scientific papers I cite in the References section, chase down all of the papers referenced therein, and read the contents thereof. That exercise should take you about a month or so to complete properly. At the end, you’ll understand why I regard your post with unconcealed scorn and derision.
Ahem, by definition, the Earth wasn’t “hostile to life” when the chemistry covered above was taking place.
Apparently you were incapable of working out for yourself, that once life emerged, it would mop up as nutrients any relevant molecules that appeared after said emergence. But I’m used to seeing such elementary failures on the part of mythology fanboys.
WRONG. See that post I linked to above, and the 82 scientific papers referenced therein.
Er, bullshit.
First of all, researchers in prebiotic chemistry propose, on the basis of relevant laboratory experiments, that numerous different nucleic acid molecules were present once the relevant chemistry was initiated. Key among these being RNA, and indeed, the “RNA World” hypothesis has been a mainstream part of prebiotic chemistry research for decades.
Even better, scientists have demonstrated in laboratory experiments, not only that RNA molecules are active in a wide range of chemical reactions (look up ‘ribozyms’ and ‘aptazymes’ for two entire classes of such reactions), but have also engaged in self-replication in the laboratory. Indeed, I cite among those papers in my post, numerous papers documenting experiments in which RNA strands not only self-replicated, but underwent Darwinian evolution. A team of Japanese scientists published four such papers recently, demonstrating that their RNA strands generated a molecular ecosystem via Darwinian evolution.
Oh, and as for your farcicial resurrection of the “dead chemicals” apologetic bullshit so beloved by creationist masturbation fantasists, you are made of dead chemicals. Indeed, ALL of the molecules in your food constitute “dead chemicals” when you consume them, especially if they’re part of a cooked meal.
Moreover, I can provide you, by way of experiment, with two samples of, for example, glucose, one synthesised from bench reagents in a laboratory, the other extracted from my blood and purified. You will NOT be able to tell the difference between the two samples by visual inspection alone, and even some sophisticated chemical tests involving isotope fractionation may not easily distinguish them. Learn once and for all, that vitalism was killed stone deaf by Wöhler in 1828, when he launched organic chemistry as a scientific discipline in its own right.
Indeed, my comment about you being incapable of distinguishing between laboratory synthesised molecules, and molecules extracted from a living organism, applies to them all.
Fatuous drivel. Those scientific papers and their contents are laughing at you. Not least because, wait for it, prebiotic chemistry research has moved on to experiments with synthetic model protocells. I cited no less than fifteen scientific papers covering relevant research in this vein, and dozens more are available if you search the relevant repositories. Indeed, I linked to three such repositories in that post. Exercise some diligence and search them.
Again, total and utter poppycock. READ those 82 scientific papers, and learn why your assertion is bullshit.
CITATION for this? I want the full citation for this alleged “research”, including paper title, list of authors, journal in which it was published, date of publication, issue number and page numbers, as I’ve provided for all of my references in that other post. Unless you can deliver on this front, I’ll assume you’re lying.
Again, bullshit.
Oh wait, one of the scientific papers I’ve covered elsewhere on the subject of lipids, demonstrates that when lipids self-assemble into structures such as micelles, bilayer sheets and liposomes, entropy actually increases and drives forward the self-assembly.
Oh, and creationist canards about entropy and the laws of thermodynamics I deal with at length in this post, courtesy of an extensive document hosted on Google Docs. The requisite creationist lies are covered under Canard #28.
No it isn’t. This is why we pay scientists to research the relevant topics. Because frequently, the operation of testable natural processes turns out to be counter-intuitive.
Bullshit.
“Magic Man did it” is a blind assertion, with ZERO evidential support. It’s the refuge of the wilfully ignorant and the intellectually indolent.
No it isn’t. It’s a natural process amenable to scientific investigation. See above.
Yawn.
No it isn’t. Grow up.