He doesn't have answers, Lois, just questions. I have a hard time taking anyway seriously when their tone matches the religious zealots that shoot through here every few months.
Indeed I have questions. Unanswered questions sofar. Questions about requirements for synthesis of protein at some stage of early Earth.
Think of me what you want. You don't know me and never will. I am only reflecting what is unkown in the theory. Aka the questions asked in the first post.
Theory says protein must have formed from simple organic precursors available in abundance. This leaves some requirements:
-Amino acids must have been available in large quantities and high density.
-There must have been a constant energy source for creating the peptides and from there on the protein.
-Water must have been eliminated from the organic mix to allow bridging of the amino acids/peptides.
There is zero religion in these statements. All textbook science. For I write down the current assumptions.
So this is the official hypothesis/theory/idea of how protein first came to be. From there on I am asking normal common sense questions.
It we assume this to be the theory. Then we must make the switch to observations. Are there any observations today that fuel the official hypothesis?
If you think I am religious for asking unanswered questions what does that tell you about your idea of scientists? Shouldn't a scientist do just that? Trying to ask unanswered questions? Science is trying to explain what we don't (yet) know.
Aren't religious people according to you not just people who will not look at the facts and ignore them? Look at what you are doing in response to my questions. You know you cannot answer them so you ignore them and try to make me look bad. How scientific of you.