From Newsgroup: talk.origins



"Chemist Ed Peltzer, a former student of Jeffrey Bada and Stanley
Miller, discusses the deep challenges of origin-of-life research. He
critiques hydrothermal vent and Miller-Urey models, highlighting the overwhelming chemical complexity and hurdles of achieving lifeAs
building blocks without guided intervention."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LWqGVgr9J0


1:00:11
We're kind of lost on origin of life, aren't we?

Yes. The Miller experiment was a tremendous advance because it was
first time somebody stopped talking and actually went in the lab and
tried to do something and it created a lot of excitement. But it's
been 75 years and we haven't gone very far.

1:02:33
Yeah. The the amount of discoveries in biochemistry that have happened
since the Miller Yuri experiment, you know, changes the game. It's so
much more complex than the target they had in mind back then.

If I remember correctly, I think the structure of DNA was announced
the same year.

Yeah, right about that time as the Stanley Moment, 1953. The target
that Stanley had when he started his experiment that didn't even know
what DNA was. And that's how juvenile the field of biochemistry was.
It's grown up a lot. And with each new discovery, the target for a
biogenesis gets further further away.

And when they discovered that structure of DNA, they didn't really
understand the code. That came about 3 or 4 years later where they
figured that you had these trimeric units that are defining for a
specific amino acid and that's how the information is now transferred.
I mean they knew so little compared to what we know now about a cell
and we continue to learn so much and you've got to solve every one of
these problems and people say well cells were much simpler back then
and so biophysicists have back calculated what is the simplest cell
you could possibly have and you still have 15 different massive
structural components that we have no idea how to make. None of them.

And so we're so far from being able to solve this thing. It's a big
problem this whole origin of life problem.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins


(resend, first one never showed up)

"Chemist Ed Peltzer, a former student of Jeffrey Bada and Stanley
Miller, discusses the deep challenges of origin-of-life research. He
critiques hydrothermal vent and Miller-Urey models, highlighting the overwhelming chemical complexity and hurdles of achieving lifeAs
building blocks without guided intervention."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LWqGVgr9J0


1:00:11
We're kind of lost on origin of life, aren't we?

Yes. The Miller experiment was a tremendous advance because it was
first time somebody stopped talking and actually went in the lab and
tried to do something and it created a lot of excitement. But it's
been 75 years and we haven't gone very far.

1:02:33
Yeah. The the amount of discoveries in biochemistry that have happened
since the Miller Yuri experiment, you know, changes the game. It's so
much more complex than the target they had in mind back then.

If I remember correctly, I think the structure of DNA was announced
the same year.

Yeah, right about that time as the Stanley Moment, 1953. The target
that Stanley had when he started his experiment that didn't even know
what DNA was. And that's how juvenile the field of biochemistry was.
It's grown up a lot. And with each new discovery, the target for a
biogenesis gets further further away.

And when they discovered that structure of DNA, they didn't really
understand the code. That came about 3 or 4 years later where they
figured that you had these trimeric units that are defining for a
specific amino acid and that's how the information is now transferred.
I mean they knew so little compared to what we know now about a cell
and we continue to learn so much and you've got to solve every one of
these problems and people say well cells were much simpler back then
and so biophysicists have back calculated what is the simplest cell
you could possibly have and you still have 15 different massive
structural components that we have no idea how to make. None of them.

And so we're so far from being able to solve this thing. It's a big
problem this whole origin of life problem.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 9/22/2025 3:05 AM, Taiger@invalid.org wrote:

(resend, first one never showed up)

"Chemist Ed Peltzer, a former student of Jeffrey Bada and Stanley
Miller, discusses the deep challenges of origin-of-life research. He critiques hydrothermal vent and Miller-Urey models, highlighting the overwhelming chemical complexity and hurdles of achieving liferCOs
building blocks without guided intervention."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LWqGVgr9J0

1:00:11
We're kind of lost on origin of life, aren't we?

Yes. The Miller experiment was a tremendous advance because it was
first time somebody stopped talking and actually went in the lab and
tried to do something and it created a lot of excitement. But it's
been 75 years and we haven't gone very far.

1:02:33
Yeah. The the amount of discoveries in biochemistry that have happened
since the Miller Yuri experiment, you know, changes the game. It's so
much more complex than the target they had in mind back then.

If I remember correctly, I think the structure of DNA was announced
the same year.

Yeah, right about that time as the Stanley Moment, 1953. The target
that Stanley had when he started his experiment that didn't even know
what DNA was. And that's how juvenile the field of biochemistry was.
It's grown up a lot. And with each new discovery, the target for a
biogenesis gets further further away.

And when they discovered that structure of DNA, they didn't really
understand the code. That came about 3 or 4 years later where they
figured that you had these trimeric units that are defining for a
specific amino acid and that's how the information is now transferred.
I mean they knew so little compared to what we know now about a cell
and we continue to learn so much and you've got to solve every one of
these problems and people say well cells were much simpler back then
and so biophysicists have back calculated what is the simplest cell
you could possibly have and you still have 15 different massive
structural components that we have no idea how to make. None of them.

And so we're so far from being able to solve this thing. It's a big
problem this whole origin of life problem.

Regurgitation of senseless denial seems to be all the anti-science creationists have left. Wallowing in denial will never support your
religious beliefs. It is just the only way that you have to lie to
yourself about reality.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 9/22/2025 3:01 AM, IDentity wrote:

"Chemist Ed Peltzer, a former student of Jeffrey Bada and Stanley
Miller, discusses the deep challenges of origin-of-life research. He critiques hydrothermal vent and Miller-Urey models, highlighting the overwhelming chemical complexity and hurdles of achieving liferCOs
building blocks without guided intervention."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LWqGVgr9J0

1:00:11
We're kind of lost on origin of life, aren't we?

Yes. The Miller experiment was a tremendous advance because it was
first time somebody stopped talking and actually went in the lab and
tried to do something and it created a lot of excitement. But it's
been 75 years and we haven't gone very far.

1:02:33
Yeah. The the amount of discoveries in biochemistry that have happened
since the Miller Yuri experiment, you know, changes the game. It's so
much more complex than the target they had in mind back then.

If I remember correctly, I think the structure of DNA was announced
the same year.

Yeah, right about that time as the Stanley Moment, 1953. The target
that Stanley had when he started his experiment that didn't even know
what DNA was. And that's how juvenile the field of biochemistry was.
It's grown up a lot. And with each new discovery, the target for a
biogenesis gets further further away.

And when they discovered that structure of DNA, they didn't really
understand the code. That came about 3 or 4 years later where they
figured that you had these trimeric units that are defining for a
specific amino acid and that's how the information is now transferred.
I mean they knew so little compared to what we know now about a cell
and we continue to learn so much and you've got to solve every one of
these problems and people say well cells were much simpler back then
and so biophysicists have back calculated what is the simplest cell
you could possibly have and you still have 15 different massive
structural components that we have no idea how to make. None of them.

And so we're so far from being able to solve this thing. It's a big
problem this whole origin of life problem.

Pretty sad spam denial stupidity. Isn't it sad what the ID creationist
scam has degenerated into?

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 10:05:44 +0200, Taiger@invalid.org wrote:

(resend, first one never showed up)

"Chemist Ed Peltzer, a former student of Jeffrey Bada and Stanley
Miller, discusses the deep challenges of origin-of-life research. He >critiques hydrothermal vent and Miller-Urey models, highlighting the >overwhelming chemical complexity and hurdles of achieving liferCOs
building blocks without guided intervention."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LWqGVgr9J0

1:00:11
We're kind of lost on origin of life, aren't we?

Yes. The Miller experiment was a tremendous advance because it was
first time somebody stopped talking and actually went in the lab and
tried to do something and it created a lot of excitement. But it's
been 75 years and we haven't gone very far.

1:02:33
Yeah. The the amount of discoveries in biochemistry that have happened
since the Miller Yuri experiment, you know, changes the game. It's so
much more complex than the target they had in mind back then.

If I remember correctly, I think the structure of DNA was announced
the same year.

Yeah, right about that time as the Stanley Moment, 1953. The target
that Stanley had when he started his experiment that didn't even know
what DNA was. And that's how juvenile the field of biochemistry was.
It's grown up a lot. And with each new discovery, the target for a
biogenesis gets further further away.

And when they discovered that structure of DNA, they didn't really
understand the code. That came about 3 or 4 years later where they
figured that you had these trimeric units that are defining for a
specific amino acid and that's how the information is now transferred.
I mean they knew so little compared to what we know now about a cell
and we continue to learn so much and you've got to solve every one of
these problems and people say well cells were much simpler back then
and so biophysicists have back calculated what is the simplest cell
you could possibly have and you still have 15 different massive
structural components that we have no idea how to make. None of them.

And so we're so far from being able to solve this thing. It's a big
problem this whole origin of life problem.

FYI using multiple email addys is a great way to make the moderator
angry. You won't like him when he's angry.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2