I have often stated that I have no reason to rely on ToE for my research and that my interest in these discussions is to point out the inadequacies in claims made for ToE related to atheistic and theistic arguments. Thus I have not made grand claims, but instead I am aware of the rampant speculation for ToE, and thus I have rejected vast claims some proponents have made (eg a brute fact of science).
If you can point me to scientific results that place the origins of life on a sound footing, I would be most grateful, and would follow such work with great enthusiasm.
I base my view on origins of life from my experience as a research scientist dealing with chemistry, and opinions I have found in the literature dealing with various speculations on origins. I refer you to a small sample some writings below – none of these references have been selected for pro-, or against-, but rather because I am competent to deal with the chemistry discussed in these sources. I will not provide a long list of references, but what I have shown below illustrates the fantastic speculation and assumptions underpinning such publications (not to mention meteors providing organic molecules, sulphur molecules under the ocean adjacent to volcanic jets, and heaven only knows what else!)
“From Prelife to Life: How Chemical KineticsBecome Evolutionary Dynamics”, IRENE A. CHEN AND MARTIN A. NOWAK, ACCOUNTS OF CHEMICAL RESEARCH, 2088–2096 ’ 2012 ’ Vol. 45, No. 12. From the introduction: Imagine an aqueous solution of small molecules on the early earth. Now try to picture how that prebiotic soup might assemble itself into even the simplest, tiniest living organism, perhaps a few hundred nanometers across. At first glance, this process may seem like an impossible leap because so many transitions must occur to transform the jittery molecules into a living structure. To understand the origin of life, one must break it down into a series of smaller transitions and look for simple ways that physical and chemical effects could accomplish each transition. One successful synthetic approach is to focus on the emergence of structures: the synthesis of monomers, polymerization of monomers into sequences, the formation of protocells by membrane encapsulation of sequences, and so forth.
9 JANUARY 2009 VOL 323 SCIENCE, Origins of Life: “This failure has led scientists to consider two other hypotheses about how RNA came to be. Cleaves and others think RNA-based life may have evolved from organisms that used a different genetic material—one no longer found in nature. Chemists have been able to use other compounds to build backbones for nucleotides (Science, 17 November 2000, p. 1306). They’re now investigating whether these human made genetic molecules, called PNA and TNA, could have emerged on their own on the early Earth more easily than RNA. According to this hypothesis, RNA evolved later and replaced the earlier molecule. But it could also be that RNA wasn’t put together the way scientists have thought. “If you want to get from Boston to New York, there is an obvious way to go. But if you can’t get there that way, there are other ways you could go,” says Sutherland. He and his colleagues have been trying to build RNA from simple organic compounds, such as formaldehyde, that existed on Earth before life began.
ACCOUNTS OF CHEMICAL RESEARCH ’ 2106–2113 ’ 2012 ’ Vol. 45, No. 12. Ocean-Atmosphere Interactions in the Emergence of Complexity in Simple Chemical Systems
ELIZABETH C. GRIFFITH,† ADRIAN F. TUCK,‡ AND VERONICA VAIDAConcentration, alignment, and orientation at the surface of water of organic molecules are possible in these environments. Models of the origin of life assume that the chemical monomeric precursors (amino acids, lipids, sugars, purine and pyrimidine bases, phosphates) for biopolymers existed on Earth. These could be chemically synthesized endogenously11 16 or generated exogenously17 20 and transported to Earth.