From: eat@joes.pub   
      
   On 7/20/2025 6:15 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 11:38:07 -0700, Kalkidas  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 7/17/2025 11:37 PM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 12:46:47 -0700, Kalkidas  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 7/17/2025 11:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>> 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-   
   our-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.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You have clearly still not grasped the principle that you cannot   
   >>>>> insist that *must have been* the butler who killed her ladyship simply   
   >>>>> because you have shown it is very unlikely that his lordship did it.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Nature simultaneously destroys what it (allegedly) creates. And it   
   >>>> destroys it faster than it (allegedly) creates it.   
   >>>   
   >>> If true then that means that the Intelligent Designer gets it wrong   
   >>> more often than he gets it right.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> What's "wrong" about it?   
   >   
   > Most of his designs didn't stand up to nature (according to you).   
      
   Nature IS his design. So what could be "wrong" about it?   
      
   >   
   >> Do you think this universe was created to be   
   >> some kind of amusement park?   
   >   
   > No, why would you think that?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)