

Sorry, Darwin: – Chemistry never made the transition to Biology - Syama
http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin/2011/10/06/sorry_darwin/

======
dalke
The point of this article is to say that abiogenesis, being the bridge between
chemistry and biology, cannot be explained by science.

Usual anti-evolution confusion reigns: confusion about the 2nd law of
thermodynamics? Check! Conflating a myriad of hypothesis with the conclusion
that no solution is possible? Check! Mentioning of irreducible complexity?
Check! The presumption that biologists regard Darwin as some sort of
infallible deity? Check!

It's well written, but it's full of trickery. Consider: "Moreover, ‘chirality’
in biology demands chemistry to supply ‘left-handed’ amino acids and ‘right-
handed’ genetic molecules". This presumes that early biology had the same
requirements as modern biology.

Or "Consequently [since 1990], numerous new speculations are attempting to
provide different explanation for the location of the origin of life on earth.
There are several suggestions ranging from life beginning in deep sea thermal
vents to bacterial life arriving from other places in the universe
(Panspermia)." But Hoyle was talking about this in 1982, which was 8 years
before the given reference.

Or "geneticists proclaim that by the assistance of RNA, structure of DNA can
decide the structure of proteins" which is again, simply not true. There's
post-translational modifications, there are environmental effects - DNA is
only one of several facts which go into the structure.

Or even "Modern genetics fails to incorporate the plastic propensities of a
living organism." WTF? That's slid in there without explanation. Any book
which ties genetics and paleontology together must talk about the plasticity
organisms through time.

