Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    talk.origins    |    Evolution versus creationism (sometimes    |    142,579 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 141,292 of 142,579    |
|    MarkE to All    |
|    Student of Stanley Miller comments on Oo    |
|    22 Aug 25 09:26:12    |
      [continued from previous message]              reaction will consume sugars in pairs yielding an alcohol and a       carboxylic acid. Moreover, high temperatures (like are found in       hydrothermal vents) will cause the sugars to dehydrate and char and,       yes, this does happen even underwater at high pressures. The principal       products were intractable materials composed of melanoids, tars and       carbon soot around the electrodes. This was not the kind of materials       biologists and chemists were looking for as they are not components of       living organisms. Later it would be shown that the amino acids were       racemic, not the pure L-isomers used by living organisms. More recent       analyses have revealed a total of about 50 different amino acids were       formed, but only 20 are used by living organisms. So, while he did find       amino acids, they were not solely the ones living organisms use. There       was a lot of chaff mixed in with the wheat. While Miller was very open       and straightforward about these problems, they tend to get over-looked       in origin-of-life discussions. There is a tendency to focus on the path       to life ignoring all the problems: the competing reactions and       sidetracks along the way. This was not Miller’s fault, but it is common       behavior among those that argue for a solely naturalistic origin of       life, where it is assumed that time and “natural selection” will take       care of all the problems.              Has my view on whether life’s emergence was a natural, unguided process       shifted with time? Of course. One starts out young and naïve. I believed       pretty much everything I read in books and was taught in class. But as I       learned more, I developed a healthy skepticism and learned to think for       myself. Not so much in high school, but more so in college and graduate       school. It was all part of being a scientist: you learn to not always       take everything at face value. Instead, I learned to ask questions: Do       the conclusions fit the data? What is the evidence for this?              [Etc...]              https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/interview-with-edward-pelt       er-on-the-origin-of-life/              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca