Are you sure that's true? For example, some of the later theories have proto-like organizing on mica leaves for just that reason, protection.

That's a good question, and it would need to be addressed before any potential pathway could be seen as a realistic possibility.

Agreed. But what's troubling is that they have had ten years to run such modest experiments.

Science is about ascertaining what actually takes place. If a given model is implausible then so be it. That's science.

I think scientists also consider what has happened and what they might be able to do if certain things turn out to be true.

OB: Well, none of us would be alive to collect on that bet. Considering what science has done in the past 1000 years, though, it seems foolish to bet on what it will or won't do in another 1000.

Science is about ascertaining what actually takes place. If a given model is implausible then so be it. That's science.

Does anyone have an estimate of a) how many thousands of trillions of RNA molecules have been screened (after all, the research is almost 10 years old) thus far and b) what's the best example of a "self-replicator" that has been found? Any references along these lines would be appreciated.

I haven't seen anyting about a self-replicator, but the Science Daily article I linked above talked about an other-replicator discovered in 2001. Put two of those near each other, and you have a replication system. Sel;f-replicators might not even have been in the loop that soon.

I'm sorry, but I sense confirmation bias here, as Bartel is testing the properties of RNA is a highly artificial (specified) setting. For example, has anyone further tested these reactions to see how robust and resilient they are?

That's a good question, and it would need to be addressed before any potential pathway could be seen as a realistic possibility.

one brow, explain how these RNA segments came to be.
Are you aware of the problems with …

Nope, I'm not a biochemist, and not aware of any of the details. As I said, there are many professionals who see these issues and find them not insurmountable, and others who think other pathways are more likely. I don't think even the testimony of a few biochemists is enough to say that all the other biochemists are wrong.

So, are you claiming that there is an insurmountable problem? Do you have a link to an annoucement of some peer-reviewed study (if not the sutdy itself) that agrees the problem is insurmountable? I at least provided that much.

Personally, I don't see why the problems of initial conditions and chemical pathways are said to hinder RNA-world speculations. They seem like easy issues for a designer to theoretically get around.

Absolutely true.

OB, it is telling that you believe human languages are not designed while simultaneously believing that OOL data plausibly supports pathways to cells.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I'd say we any solid knowledge yet of "pathways to cells". There is so much yet to uncover. I'm just saying it seems to be a wide-open question, and to accuse anyone on either side of ignoring the evidence is unfair and untrue.

Why not get the empirical evidence that RNA replication leads to cells instead of the RNA world blah, blah, blah we are currently subjected to?

No doubt that is a long-term goal.

I'll wager it does not happen in this millenium.

Well, none of us would be alive to collect on that bet. Considering what science has done in the past 1000 years, though, it seems foolish to bet on what it will or won't do in another 1000.

Hi One Brow. You seem to be fairly new here.

Well, here perhaps. I've been discussin topics on Usenet and various websites for close to 10 years, so while not an old hand yet, I have enough experience to know what can and can not be done. It's really not necessary to poison the well against Bradford, nor especially nice.