[
Replying to post 16 by Jashwell]
Throwing around websites that do nothing but promote bad science just proves my point. After reviewing the website
http://exploringorigins.org/protocell.html and reading a very lopsided viewpoint I want to set the record straight.
First, and foremost, it's all theory. They use "could have", "may have", "theoretically", a lot without actually showing what we actually observe in science. For example, there's a link to "Recent research" that takes us to a study "Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions". Linked here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 08013.html
I didn't have to search far to find a noted chemist and staunch evolutionist Robert Shapiro (recently deceased) had this to say about Sutherland's work,
- 'Although as an exercise in chemistry this represents some very elegant work, this has nothing to do with the origin of life on Earth whatsoever,' he says. According to Shapiro, it is hard to imagine RNA forming in a prebiotic world along the lines of Sutherland's synthesis.
'The chances that blind, undirected, inanimate chemistry would go out of its way in multiple steps and use of reagents in just the right sequence to form RNA is highly unlikely,' argues Shapiro. Instead, he advocates the metabolism-first argument: that early self-sustaining autocatalytic chemosynthetic systems associated with amino acids predated RNA. http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/ ... 050902.asp
Dr. Shapiro basically says that these were NOT "prebiotically plausible conditions". It was a very controlled environment, one which took multiple steps by an "intelligent designer" in the lab. (My words not his. Shapiro was not an ID'er) They also "forgot" to mention the fact that only two of the four needed nucleobases were formed. AND that the reaction didn't use water (he had to evaporate the water to get a reaction). AND he had to zap them at the right time with UV to get the reaction (any earlier would have destroyed the molecules).
The Murchison meteorite is also mentioned as "evidence" of RNA. This again, is just not true. The meteorite did not have all four nucleobases needed, and they were not homochiral - both "right-" and "left-handed" enantiomers were present. The meteorite is 4.95 Billion years old (500 Million years
older than the earth). This
proves that time and space have no chiral selectivity that eliminates one or the other. Dr. Shapiro also comments on the meteorite.
- Robert Shapiro, a professor emeritus and senior research scientist in chemistry at New York University, says that because of their low concentration, extraterrestrial nucleobases were unlikely to have played much of a role in kick-starting life. "They're a subunit of a subunit of RNA/DNA," he says. "My opinion is that their amounts were utterly unimportant and insignificant." He says he would be more impressed if whole nucleosides—bases plus sugars—were found in meteorites in concentrations similar to those of amino acids.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... the-origi/
Can you tell this staunch evolutionist is really not a fan of the RNA World theory? He has his own, but he throughally debunks this one.
So, the order goes nucleobase -> nucleoside -> nucleotide -> RNA (ribonucleic acid) -> ribozyme, which are orders and orders of magnitude to get there. All the RNA World theory has is a very tiny number a nucleobases (not even the required ones) without the necessary sugars and phosphates, an engineered and artificial nucleotide, and absolutely no way to stick them together, nor in the right order.
Takes atheists a lot of faith to believe in magic that they push as "science". Sorry, but the real science is against them.
