Samsaran:
No, his time scale is one of several millions not "billions and billions". It is not nearly long enough for Dawkins monkeys to write an Archie comic book much less Hamlet.

Cleary you don't shop at the same Monkey Comic Book stores I do. The Monkey Todd McFarlane's Monkey Spawn series is incredible. I'm gonna check out MonkeyComicon 2008 this summer.

Samsaran: No, his time scale is one of several millions not "billions and billions". It is not nearly long enough for Dawkins monkeys to write an Archie comic book much less Hamlet. Moreover, his leap, without a shred of proof from "organic molecules" to the "replicator" to DNA and single celled organisms complete with cell walls and organelles in just 500 million years or so is as much of a leap of faith as Bevets ever made.

I don't have my copy of Blind Watchmaker, its loaned out to a friend, so forgive me for misrepresenting what he wrote, I was going off memory.

However, what work have you done to show that the timescale of several million years is not enough to create an Archie comic, let alone Hamlet?

If you want to talk Abiogenesis and timescales, I'm happy to, I've got the papers sitting on my desk somewhere.

NateInYourFace: When will you stop pretending that the teaching of evolution isn't a vain attempt to spread atheism?

Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. If it turns out the universe works to create life by a long natural process not guided during its growth by any divine force, there's nothing there that denies or even speaks to the idea that some power set the system into motion.

Frankly, saying evolution is a tool of atheism is not giving God much credit. If there is a God, he can do math, he probably got an A+ in organic chemistry, and since he would have set in place the laws of thermodynamics and everything else he probably did pretty well in physics too. Why couldn't he have set up a simple system that would grown in complexity over the eons to create ourselves and the wondrous world we live in, without any additional intervention?

Do you look at a fully grown tree and figure someone must have crafted the tree just as it is now because you can't conceive of such a complex thing having come form such an amazingly simple seed? No, of course not. Could the natural laws of the universe be a sort of seed planted by God that grew into its current state?

Why do you believe evolution equates to a denial of the possibility of a creator?

For starters, the scientific community that supports evolution guards it like it's the holy grail, and discourages the idea of logically testing and exploring its components.

Wow is that dumb. I guess all those paleontologists are just sittin' around, doin' nothin'.

And another thing just occurred to me. For supposedly religious people, ID proponents certainly do a lot of lying, like how this bill is about 'academic freedom.'

theorellior:
A leap suggests something happening in seconds. Do you have any concept of how long 500 million years is?

83333.33- cycles of the Earth until now?

Samsaran: ninjakirby: yet disregard Dawkins probability mathematics because it uses a timescale of billions and billions of years?

No, his time scale is one of several millions not "billions and billions". It is not nearly long enough for Dawkins monkeys to write an Archie comic book much less Hamlet. Moreover, his leap, without a shred of proof from "organic molecules" to the "replicator" to DNA and single celled organisms complete with cell walls and organelles in just 500 million years or so is as much of a leap of faith as Bevets ever made.

You really need to understand the argument from improbability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B1g_DObYIc

/quickly now , you are begining to look really foolish

C'mon NateInYourFace, turn off the computer lil' buddy it's time for bed. Don't forget to put your helmet on.

theorellior: A leap suggests something happening in seconds. Do you have any concept of how long 500 million years is?

It is not very long considering the improbability of what is being postulated. It is "faith" pure and simple. Belief without proof. Dawkins has taken a lot of flak for it too from the scientific community. I see it as intellectual dishonesty.

Samsaran: theorellior: A leap suggests something happening in seconds. Do you have any concept of how long 500 million years is?

It is not very long considering the improbability of what is being postulated. It is "faith" pure and simple. Belief without proof. Dawkins has taken a lot of flak for it too from the scientific community. I see it as intellectual dishonesty.

With the laws of the universe being what they are, not only is life evolving the way it did possible, its very likely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B1g_DObYIc

/Again

Bevets: Are you suggesting the ACLU is infallible? Should free speech be permitted in high school classrooms?

How about we teach witchcraft in Sunday school? Teaching the controversy, bro! Or does teaching subjects in their appropriate places only matter in Sunday School?

So, I have three questions for you:
1. Genesis 1 or 2. Which one is the lie?
2. If the old testament is perfect and should be followed exactly, do you eat shrimp?
3. Why is your god so stupid that he can't use evolution to create life?

guyinjeep16: You really need to understand the argument from improbability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B1g_DObYIc

/quickly now , you are begining to look really foolish

Careful now, if you're able to see through his weak yet pretentious attempts at sophistry it means you obviously you aren't educated enough to understand his points and are in fear of his superior knowledge like the drooling morons in Idiocracy.

Bevets: ninjakirby

Oh hell yes.

Are you suggesting the ACLU is infallible? Should free speech be permitted in high school classrooms?

Merely providing evidence to contradict the popular notion that the ACLU is anti-religious. Personal opinion is that freedom of speech should not be fully extended to students, for multiple reasons, most of which can be found here Additionally, this is anecdotal, but I recall hearing years ago that the supreme court had ruled that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to students. I heard this from a teacher, so maybe she just wanted me to shut up.

Bevets: You never noticed all the names are underlined?

Yes, and often clicking them takes me to another page which has the full accumulation of their quotations, or it leads me to a page of A/V stuff, or it leads me somewhere else. Your website lacks structure and is difficult to navigate for numerous reasons, which I'll go in to if you want. The largest problem is simply that information is buried and difficult to access in a structured manner.

If you're interested, my father is quite religious, and a web developer, perhaps he could help you out - you guys could be buddies.

Samsaran:
He fails to understand the meaning of academic freedom. This is not about religion. This is about the ability of academics to put forward new and unpopular ideas without fear of reprisal.

...

The Scientific Orthodoxy opposed Germ Theory and the Big Bang theory merely because these ideas went against the accepted teachings of the era.

Yes, but it's irrelevant, as the bill proposed attacks evolution directly and makes no scientific claims, refraining from even bothering to attack from a scientific angle. Academic freedom only applies to academic subjects.

And, also, neither germ theory nor the big bang theory was 'opposed' in the sense implied, but neither were they adopted until the scientific process set up measurable conditions which rendered the theories mutually contradictory and disproved the incorrect ones, leaving only the germs and bang behind. Before Leewenhoek and his ilk observed bacteria and some other guys measured a correlation of specific ones to disease? Yeah, germ theory was not accepted, as entirely proper.

What I'm saying here is that nothing is being opposed. Formulate a theory that can't already be disproven by existing data, formulate a hypothesis and propose some experiments, and go for it. But do remember that any new theory has to also explain the previous observations in order to be valid, or potential funders are jsut going to laugh at you... not for being religious, but for being incompetent.

abb3w:
quiet_american: I was told there would be no math.

Evolution threads almost always have some. For example, do you agree or disagree with the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction - that (P OR Q) is equivalent to (Q OR P)?

That depends to what vector space P and Q belong and how the OR operation is defined on said space.

//Also, good post, saved me a lot of typing.

Bevets: You never noticed all the names are underlined?

Again, as I stated several posts later, I wasn't talking about your site ya ignorant wanker.

theorellior: I'm all for teaching the Essential Humors and also Phlogiston Theory as well.

Which class do we learn to apply leaches?

ninjakirby: 1st Amendment doesn't apply to students. I heard this from a teacher, so maybe she just wanted me to shut up.

Ahah, I knew this sounded familiar - the case I was thinking of was Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

maddogdelta: Which class do we learn to apply leaches?

PE, duh.

maddogdelta: Which class do we learn to apply leaches?

My wife's grandmother believed in the merits of "blistering", or "cupping" I think it's also called. You know, to draw out the humors. They still do it in a lot of traditional Asian medicine. That freaks me out 10x more than leeches (unless we're talking that one scene from "Stand by Me").

http://Little.Alex/
Even if Al Gore's data fails a goodness of fit test for his own model: it makes you a good virtuous marxist to pretent the world is overheating. And we must all agree to pretend until Gore is a billionaire.

Do you have a problem with Gore, or what he is saying? If one of your icons (say, George Bush) had warned us about global climate change, would you believe him? Or are your panties in a bunch because deep down you know what the climate change scientists is true and it scares you to think otherwise?

btw, Gore was rich before his crusade against GCC, moran. You want to f*ck up the world for you great grand-children (assuming you breed - please reconsider) so you can have that shiny new H2, go right ahead... just don't tell them where your grave is because it's going to smell like piss.

Bevets: Are you suggesting the ACLU is infallible? Should free speech be permitted in high school classrooms?

ninjakirby: Ahah, I knew this sounded familiar - the case I was thinking of was Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

For further clarification, Tinker v District upheld the 1st Amendment in school, requiring that faculty show that the speech was truly a disruption, similar to our hate speech laws, or yelling fire in a theatre. So I was totally off base when I said it was not applied to students. Oops.

mizchief: Me, as well as most people who belive evloution is true, have heard both sides and were able to choose for ourselves.

I am confused. What, exactly, do you mean by "both sides"?

Bucky Katt: Academic freedom should protect the right of a professor or student to advocate Marxism, socialism, communism, or any other minority viewpoint -- no matter how distatsteful to the majority.
-Richard Nixon

If you and I were in a class together - say 8.01 Mechanical Physics, and the professor called on me to describe Hooke's Law.

Would I be in my place to begin a tirade about the capitalist economy in post-modern society, due to the imperialist practices of the American government?

Or would you tell me to sit down and STFU?

Bucky Katt: Academic freedom should protect the right of a professor or student to advocate Marxism, socialism, communism, or any other minority viewpoint -- no matter how distatsteful to the majority.
-Richard Nixon

Advocate whatever you want; it doesn't make you right. Turn in a history paper that denies the holocaust, turn in a math test which gives a solution of 2x=8 x=3 and see what mark it gets, and write in bioclass how the intelligent designer created everything as it is. Should any of the students that did not bother to learn the facts be treated better than those that did? Do they get a free pass for their beliefs?

PC LOAD LETTER: Samsaran: Subby FAILS.

This should be good.

He fails to understand the meaning of academic freedom. This is not about religion.

The Courts disagree with you. As does, well, everyone else asides from the usual clown car.

This is about the ability of academics to put forward new and unpopular ideas without fear of reprisal.

You mean like Evolution? You folks were so tolerant of that when it came out. Let me speak slowly: ID IS NOT A NEW THEORY

Got it? You aren't the mavericks here trying to shake up the system. You were never part of the science system. You can never be part of it. And everytime science came out with something you didn't like, you tried to supress it.

Academic freedom does not mean "freedom for those who agree with the majority" or the "scientific orthodoxy".

Yeah, it means the freedom for those whose ideas pass muster to make it into academic discussion. There's a reason why Witch Doctoring isn't taught in Medical School despite the fact that hundreds of millions of people the world over have seen success in using it.


The Scientific Orthodoxy is like all other orthodoxies ... it has a vested interest in the status quo.

Please name the President of Science.

What about the legislature?

Surely a Mayor?

Alderman?

Public Advocate?

Prom Queen?

There is no bloody "orthodoxy". There are a bunch of folks trying to get their grants approved and get published in a crowded, massively competitive field before someone else scoops their research. Each journal has a review board. So does each granting body. They don't talk. They don't meet. Scientists meet in symposiums to present research. Schools have scientists set academic standards for the school system in question.

Are you getting the picture here? There is no damn centralized government or place where consensus is reached. Hell, things get into textbooks that are cutting edge and don't really belong there sometimes.

Key concept:

When something has been reasonably proven, it becomes something Scientists are aware of on their own. They read up on it. If it makes sense, it becomes accepted just by nature of it MAKING SENSE. Someone usually writes up a paper tying all the loose ends together and it gets critiqued and discussed by whoever writes into the journal it was published in. Some people try to reproduce the work, or publish counterpoints to the research. That last part is where you are stuck.

You think you can just submit critiques and it will be heard and analyzed and studied and accepted. Well, it has to pass basic muster first. And ID does not and never will. So you complain that it must be the scientists fault. That's called the Bare Assertion Fallacy. The reason the valid experts in evolution reject ID is because it does not pass basic scientific rigor. It's an idea with no proof. Worse yet, it's an idea whose criticisms are either born out of ignorance, or worse, they are valid criticisms but the impact of the criticism on the idea they are criticizing is non-existant.

It was the scientific orthodoxy of the day, those advisers to the Pope who had a vested interest in the Aristotelian world view, which pushed for the persecution of Galileo.

Oh, please. Like you had any proof of what Galileo overturned. Did you EVER read Aristotle? He fails at following his own logic when it comes to discerning nature. He deduces without sufficiently observing. Science can theorize, but after some evidence is presented, only then can it state a theory. Only after it finds a formula to fit the model can it state a law.


The Scientific Orthodoxy opposed Germ Theory and the Big Bang theory merely because these ideas went against the accepted teachings of the era.

Yep, but the differences is that there was evidence to support those.

You guys have had 6000 years. You still have ZERO evidence.

And you wonder why you are laughed at.

I think I just fell in love with you.
My hands are bleeding from applauding you so hard.

BMulligan: Samsaran: No. I understand science very well. Many ideas though out history have been rejected at first and dismissed with the snobbery you exhibit. For example, are you familiar with Lord Kelvin? He spent the better part of his career trying to determine the age of the earth. Although he was way off due to an error in his methodology, he was so highly respected that his opinions overshadowed the far more accurate estimates. The idea that the Earth was BILLIONS of years old instead of 40 to 60 million years old was dismissed as fantasy and proponents of the idea were ridiculed by the established authorities. This happens again and again though out history.

With all due respect, this example has fark all to do with the subject at hand. You say that Kelvin committed an error of methodology - well, then, how was that error discovered? Through, oh, I don't know - maybe the scientific method? Hypothesis and experiment? Call me crazy, but I'm guessing that it wasn't through legislation.

Interesting that you would ask that. In fact, Samsaran would probably rather you not know the details. It wasn't an error in methodology along the lines of say, forgetting to carry the '2'. The main problem was that nuclear physics had not been discovered yet. So he made an assumption about the starting temperature of the Earth, and used the drop in temperature through the Earth's crust to calculate the age of the Earth. This faulty assumption led to the incorrect age.

Now why would Samsaran not like you to know the details? Kelvin's main opponents regarding his age of the Earth were... Darwin's supporters. (And geologists.) Neither groups thought his age was long enough to explain the evidence they had found. The "far more accurate" estimates Samsaran lauds were from Darwin's supporters. Samsaran would've had to have known that, if he had studied the history of Kelvin's estimate of the age of the Earth at all. But he decided to leave that out, because like most ID supporters, he's a dishonest shiat.

Citizen Snip: BMulligan: Samsaran: No. I understand science very well. Many ideas though out history have been rejected at first and dismissed with the snobbery you exhibit. For example, are you familiar with Lord Kelvin? He spent the better part of his career trying to determine the age of the earth. Although he was way off due to an error in his methodology, he was so highly respected that his opinions overshadowed the far more accurate estimates. The idea that the Earth was BILLIONS of years old instead of 40 to 60 million years old was dismissed as fantasy and proponents of the idea were ridiculed by the established authorities. This happens again and again though out history.

With all due respect, this example has fark all to do with the subject at hand. You say that Kelvin committed an error of methodology - well, then, how was that error discovered? Through, oh, I don't know - maybe the scientific method? Hypothesis and experiment? Call me crazy, but I'm guessing that it wasn't through legislation.

Interesting that you would ask that. In fact, Samsaran would probably rather you not know the details. It wasn't an error in methodology along the lines of say, forgetting to carry the '2'. The main problem was that nuclear physics had not been discovered yet. So he made an assumption about the starting temperature of the Earth, and used the drop in temperature through the Earth's crust to calculate the age of the Earth. This faulty assumption led to the incorrect age.

Now why would Samsaran not like you to know the details? Kelvin's main opponents regarding his age of the Earth were... Darwin's supporters. (And geologists.) Neither groups thought his age was long enough to explain the evidence they had found. The "far more accurate" estimates Samsaran lauds were from Darwin's supporters. Samsaran would've had to have known that, if he had studied the history of Kelvin's estimate of the age of the Earth at all. But he decided to leave that out, because like most ID supporters, he's a dishonest shiat.

I love a good beat-down

/Applauds

The discussion here is about whether or not is first POSSIBLE and second PROBABLE that random combinations of precursor molecules in a primordial soup could produce a self replicating protein. This is still a long long way from life mind you. We are setting the bar very low here.

One researcher puts it like this:

The calculation goes that the probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein (say an enzyme like carboxypeptidase) randomly is (1/20)300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390, which is astoundingly, mind-beggaringly improbable. This is then cranked up by adding on the probabilities of generating 400 or so similar enzymes until a figure is reached that is so huge that merely contemplating it causes your brain to dribble out your ears. This gives the impression that the formation of even the smallest organism seems totally impossible. However, this is completely incorrect.

Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms.


Now what we see is a pure conjecture. He postulates first simple carbon based molecular strings. These then must now mutate into more complex "cooperative self replicating systems". Now, I would accept that given ideal conditions certain organic polymers might form; however, the next stage (underlined above) is a giant leap of pure guesswork. The problem here is that most people do not grasp how incredibly outrageous that proposition is once analyzed. Now, if science could even approximate such a thing I would be convinced.

He then goes on to propose:

The first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule, similar to the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group


Pointing to the Ghadiri self replicating peptide as an example of what a Dawkins replicator might be like is also just plain silly. Dr. Ghadiri himself when posed with that question said "None of the molecules that have been made would sustain themselves (be able to continue self-replication) in an environment outside of the chemical reactions under which they are able to self-replicate, says Dr Ghadiri. These molecules, he says, are themselves chemical reactions. They just happen to be self-replicating molecules that mimic one of the processes -- self-replication -- that is found in what we call living organisms."

In other words, just as in the Miller-Urey experiment these were ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCTS made under ideal laboratory conditions, not so much made to emulate the postulated "primordial soup" as to be ideal for the creation of carbon strings.

You might think that this flagellum is an example of irreducible complexity.




However, this man with bubonic plague will tell you that just 10 of the required proteins of the flagellum still function quite effectively.

Ed Grubermann: Lee451: Let's get this straight:
1. Scientists have no idea how or why life exists except that "it just happened".

We haven't figured out the "how" yet. We are finding interesting pieces to the puzzle, however. As to "why", what makes you think there even is a "why"?

2. The universe came from nothingness...

I'll let someone more versed in cosmology tackle that one.

Not necessarily "nothingness." Branes and multiverse theories posit that our universe is the result of activity in higher dimensions.. something like that. Too difficult to explain in one or two lines.

3. Simple chemicals mutated and evolved into complex creatures despite the fact that the odds of chemicals combining randomly and forming something as complex as DNA and RNA is beyond astronomical. This, too, goes against entropy.

The odds against you being born at all or beyond astronomical. Yet you are here. The odds against are meaningless over a long enough time. All life needs is a non-negative chance. As for going against entropy, I'd suggest going outside and looking at that big, bright yellow thing in the sky. That's called the sun. It's a giant thermonuclear furnace pouring energy into the earth. Its entropy is more than enough to compensate for anything in the solar system.

Actually nonlinear dynamics and complex adaptive systems show that life is practically inevitable. "The odds against are meaningless over a long enough time" is a great point. The universe is about 14 billion years old. 14 BILLION! That's a pretty damn long time.

Samsaran: Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms.

Cite the source, I'm willing to bet the author goes on to validate this 'pure conjecture' with further evidence.

Samsaran: These molecules, he says, are themselves chemical reactions. They just happen to be self-replicating molecules that mimic one of the processes -- self-replication -- that is found in what we call living organisms.

Still need a source, what molecules are these which are replicating, but don't count, because they are mimicing? How was this difference made?

In other words, just as in the Miller-Urey experiment these were ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCTS made under ideal laboratory conditions, not so much made to emulate the postulated "primordial soup" as to be ideal for the creation of carbon strings.

If it is possible to use natural methods to artificially create the building blocks of life, why is it impossible to have it occur naturally?

Samsaran:
Now, if science could even approximate such a thing I would be convinced.


So what you're saying is that you disagree with all of evolutionary science because it doesn't have all of the answers? So, it's better to be completely wrong than incomplete?

Samsaran: The discussion here is about whether or not is first POSSIBLE and second PROBABLE that random combinations of precursor molecules in a primordial soup could produce a self replicating protein. This is still a long long way from life mind you. We are setting the bar very low here.

No actually it's not. The discussion here is whether once that 'primordial soup' produced a living thing it (as a species not as a specific being) changed through natural influences or super-natural (ie God). Evolution makes no claims about how life began, it just assumes that there is life (you know since there is now life) and then explains how it changes.

The Noble Rot: You guys have had 6000 years. You still have ZERO evidence.

And you wonder why you are laughed at.

Are you under the impression that I am a Christian Fundamentalist or young Earth Creationist? If so you must not have read (or understood) anything I have written. I haven't even noticed that you posted anything to me.

What statement of mine did you feel was incorrect?

I am discussing the theory of abiogenesis. I am not an anti evolutionist. The idea of evolution is absolutely true and correct and can even be witnessed in action as we see in the development of resistances in bacteria.

No the interesting question is how did life form from non-life?

ninjakirby: Cite the source, I'm willing to bet the author goes on to validate this 'pure conjecture' with further evidence.

I did cite the source much earlier in the thread. Source

CitizenReserveCorps: So what you're saying is that you disagree with all of evolutionary science because it doesn't have all of the answers? So, it's better to be completely wrong than incomplete?

No I believe in what I said not your mischaracterization of what I said.

Samsaran: No the interesting question is how did life form from non-life?

While I'm waiting for the citation of the research above, my question is this:

If we did have bedrock concrete irrefuable evidence supporting the chemical origins of life, why would that change your belief in God?

I'm happy to discuss the work done in Chemistry on the subject, and back inference that life arose naturally, but the bigger question, imo, is why this point matters so much to you?

Samsaran: The Noble Rot: You guys have had 6000 years. You still have ZERO evidence.

And you wonder why you are laughed at.

Are you under the impression that I am a Christian Fundamentalist or young Earth Creationist? If so you must not have read (or understood) anything I have written. I haven't even noticed that you posted anything to me.

What statement of mine did you feel was incorrect?

I am discussing the theory of abiogenesis. I am not an anti evolutionist. The idea of evolution is absolutely true and correct and can even be witnessed in action as we see in the development of resistances in bacteria.

No the interesting question is how did life form from non-life?

You dont even understand the argument of improbability that you try to push, and how wrong it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B1g_DObYIc

You come here with the same old tired arguments as every-other person who hasnt done their homework.

mizchief: I don't really see the problem here. Schools should be free to teach whatever the local community wants as long as they are taught both sides of the story. Me, as well as most people who believe evolution is true, have heard both sides and were able to choose for ourselves. Why not let the next generation do the same?

Do they need schools to bring it up? Did you need them to? Hasn't "the other side of the story" long since been brought up by the kid's parents and community? Is the kid not free to go to religious institutions? By the way, which "both" gets included and which are excluded? Finally, trying to pass off religion as science doesn't do justice to this issue anyway. You will just have kids who don't know what the fark science is. See confused rambling about the theory of evolution above. And they still won't learn how to reckon science with religion.

Now, I would love to live in a place where philosophical questions such as this were explored constructively and openly in grade school. Perhaps I will see an actual attempt of it in my lifetime. This, however, is no such thing. It's just an attempt to hijack science to proselytize Christianity.

Samsaran: ninjakirby: Cite the source, I'm willing to bet the author goes on to validate this 'pure conjecture' with further evidence.

I did cite the source much earlier in the thread. Source

Ah, so I was correct. The evidence the author has to back his claim can be found in:

[2] Orgel LE, Polymerization on the rocks: theoretical introduction. Orig Life Evol Biosph, 28: 227-34, 1998

[5] Varetto L, Studying artificial life with a molecular automaton. J Theor Biol, 193: 257-85, 1998

[10] Lee DH, Severin K, and Ghadri MR. Autocatalytic networks: the transition from molecular self-replication to molecular ecosystems. Curr Opinion Chem Biol, 1, 491-496, 1997

[15] Lazcano A, and Miller SL, The origin and early evolution of life: prebiotic chemistry, the pre- RNA world, and time. Cell, 85: 793-8, 1996

[28] Eigen M, and Schuster P, The hypercycle. A principle of natural self-organization. Springer-Verlag, isbn 3-540-09293, 1979

Yeah.. totally baseless conjecture he's got there. It's not like it's backed by evidence at all.

ninjakirby: Cite the source, I'm willing to bet the author goes on to validate this 'pure conjecture' with further evidence.

It's from here.

pops