From: vallor@cultnix.org   
      
   On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 12:44:11 -0700, Kalkidas  wrote in   
   <105bjqb$1hhh0$1@dont-email.me>:   
      
   > On 7/17/2025 3:53 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:   
   >> On 2025-07-17 08:56:37 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:   
   >>   
   >>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 15:44:28 +1000 MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> From this recent EN article:   
   >>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new-article-from-james-tour-   
   >>>> undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 'In comparison to a protein’s half-life, the rate of polypeptide   
   >>>> chain elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al.   
   >>>> (2025) identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth,   
   >>>> including the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic   
   >>>> structures, stringent environmental requirements, and unfavorable   
   >>>> thermodynamics. Their analysis establishes that the rate of growth   
   >>>> must be far smaller than one added amino acid per chain per day."   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200   
   >>>> amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain   
   >>>> would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The   
   >>>> challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter   
   >>>> half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles   
   >>>> during formation."   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think   
   >>>> an example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental   
   >>>> challenges to OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge,   
   >>>> weakening materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core   
   >>>> claim.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>> ID has no science; it doesn't explain anything. It's classic God of   
   >>> the Gaps.  But you've been told before. PS get a better news source.   
   >>   
   >> And people interested in serious science don't look for it in Evolution   
   >> News.   
   >>   
   >>   
   > The evolutionnews.org article merely summarizes a peer-reviewed   
   > scientific paper, for which the link is given.   
      
   "sciendo.com" isn't what you think it is.   
      
   Don't take my word for it -- go look for yourself.   
      
   --   
   -v   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)