Rob- it's a bit difficult to get your objections when you have so much extraneous material in your post. Some of it seems to be random rants and side commentaries. Also, what do you mean by 'theo'? God? Theorizing? Why the disdain for speculation? As scientists, we research these projects because they are fun, and because along the way impressive results can be produced. Two examples off the top of my head are Victor Hruby, who does some origins of life research and who has helped invent a new class of drugs for fighting cancer and diabetes (
Page not found | Biochemistry and Molecular & Cellular Biology Graduate Program), and Steve Benner, whose research into alternative nucleobases in the origin of life has also led to a potent new class of drugs (
Object not found!). My own research may eventually benefit dentistry and environmental remediation, though it's focused on origins work.
When we do know... then all of this 'theo' may actually be worth something more than the title of science fiction. All of the technical jargon is not useful at all other than for the purpose of intimidation, of which I am not inclined.
You boys speak often of testability (the hallmark of science) yet you are far from it...
Without a doubt, there are gaps in our knowledge. However, in many ways it's because the experiments haven't been done yet. Research in the origin of life is still beginning in some respects, and sticking God in there does a disservice to both God and to research. The amount of extra variables in the experimental setups is huge, and takes time to explore. As a recent example, the Miller-Urey synthesis has been criticized for a lack of production of amino acids under a CO2 atmosphere (as opposed to a CH4 atmosphere). However, the addition of small amounts of ferrous salts increased their production significantly even under these oxidizing conditions. In the case of this experiment, there were untried conditions. All the experiments are testable, and repeatable, so I'm not sure of your objection there.
This smallest autocatalytic strand you talk of, with 30 amino acids... is that a computer generated model? If so, were the computer and the software not designed by intelligent agents for the purpose of creating this cenario? If not, was it found within the confines of an already complete organism?
One might tend to think it was found all alone in some swamp the way you referred to it. As though it were anything more than grand speculation. What do you mean clocked? Do you mean postulated by a computer 'virtual creation' with intelligent agents at the helm who's purpose is to show that we don't need intelligent guidance?
Molbiogirl has directed you to one set of experiments, and there have been more done recently. From Joyce (Science 16 March 2007), citing work done by Robertson and Scott in the same issue:
No known RNA enzyme in biology catalyzes the polymerase-like joining of RNA. However, the powerful methods of in vitro evolution have made it possible to generate such enzymes from scratch, starting from a large population of RNAs with random sequences
These projects weren't done on computer, nor were they based on biology. They were formed by random assembly and selection.
By clocked, I mean the smallest strand. It's a research race to get the smallest molecule amongst RNA workers, and so far its about 30 units long.
Like intelligent agents in a lab coat? You might succeed some day... but don't count your chickens until you first design a fertile egg (and keep it nice and warm in an incubator specifically designed for that egg).
...
Isaac Asimov would be proud of the way you refer to imaginary things as though they are real.
What? You've parsed a single paragraph too much here. I've never presented these as anything beyond speculation.
Speculation may be shown to be correct or incorrect depending on work in the future. Schrodinger speculated on DNA in the 1940s, was DNA imaginary prior to its discover by Watson and Crick? No, DNA is real. Maxwell postulated the existence of an ether, till disproved by Einstein and colleagues. Was the ether imaginary? Yes. But we're not at the proving/disproving point yet with this research, so we can't claim it's imaginary or anything else.
When you say 'immensely well supported' do you mean that it is a very popular 'theo'ry'? Because you almost give the impression that there is actually evidence that self exists out there... like some uncaused, self evident truth (better known as logic).
As molbiogirl says, it's quite well supported by about 25 years of research. We're just starting to use RNA, ribozymes, and such in a variety of medical practices.
The fault with your video is that it suggests only that the following exists:
DNA codes for protein which catalyzes the formation of DNA.
In reality, it's:
DNA codes for RNA which is a potent catalyst itself for many reactions, which can transfer genetic information, bits of which are metabolic coenzymes, and which catalyzes the formation of proteins which catalyze the formation of DNA.
It's no longer a "which came first" problem when an entity can do both things.
Matt, fate takes some strange twists... these arguments they give you are not just exaggerations, but beyond conjecture presented as fact, they are pure deception; clever, pea palming magic. They are miraculous signs and wonders...
...
Gaurd your mind friend. There are wolves who seek to devour you.
The origins field is especially cautious not to let speculation become dogma, like all science should be. In fact, because of the wealth of research opportunities, origins scientists are much more tolerant of unusual ideas. Your accusation of deception is a bit silly too, and I don't understand why you make it. How is speculation deceptive? I for one don't believe the strong RNA world is the answer, but that future work will eventually reveal the answer. If not in my lifetime, then so be it.
™ Version 4.2
