Not my problem.
[[Not my problem.]]
Not your problem? you’re the oen that brought it up in the first place- What are you tryign to infer? That this paper is worthless becasuse someone made a bunch of assumptions about clay in the past & assumptions abotu how info ‘could have’ arisen? The fact is, Cairns didn’t as far as I know, concider the necessary 5 points of life- he just made assumptions about one level- suggesting thta it coudl transfer to hte next- The paper we’re discussing takes it to the IC 5 points of life
The hypothesis:
[[”Cycles of wetting and drying produced by the ocean tides cause stress in the clay that translated into energy. These cycles can link molecules of amino acids together by transferring energy .... The ions in clay act as catalysts to speed up chemical reactions ... when in the presence of clays some organic molecules can also perform functions like enzymes”7]]
http://www.studytoanswer.net/origins/abiogenesis.html
Swell- whatever, but how does that even remotely explain anythign liek the paper we’re discussing? Nor does his book I think cover the chemical purity discussed- correct me if I’m wrong
“While the clay particles do have an organisation from their crystal structures, this organisation is very simple. Meanwhile, even the simplest life form, and the biochemical molecules which enable this life to be life, are far more complex. Even the most basic of biochemical species which would be needed to lead up to the chemical evolution of life are far too complex to have been directed by a simple crystalline structure.”
Does Cairns address this in his book?