> Maybe so, from all of the proteinoid microspheres I was choking on!
>
I appreciate the fact that you responded in the humorous fashion that I
intended.
>
> I encourage you again Kevin, just to try some of the experiments.
>
I hope one day to be able to, but that is not the real issue here; see later.
>
> They are ridiculously simple to do....
>
Exactly why proteinoids have far more relevance to abiogenesis than virtually
any other scenario for the origin of life. The basic mechanism is so simple
that it could have been easily produced in a variety of ways in a variety of
locations at a variety of times on the primitive earth, even without
biochemists and pure amino acids.
>
> ...and you will be able to speak from first-hand
> experience about the ease of production of microspheres.
>
You've never explained why that is necessary, or even relevant. If I told
you that you should repeat Kettlewell's peppered moth experiment so that you
could speak from first-hand experience, you would undoubtably point out that
it is unnecessary for you to actually do the experiments in order to be able
to discuss them, as long as you had read the literature. (In fact, I think
you did say something very much like that at the time, when I suggested that
because you were neither a biologist nor a field researcher that you did not
have the qualifications to critique Kettlewell's work.) Well, the same
applies to me in this case: as long as I have read the literature I do not
need to repeat any of the relevant literature to be able to discuss it.
(Besides which, as a protein chemist and enzymologist I am qualified to
critique this subject.) Again, though, this is not the real issue. The real
issue is the validity of the published research to date. Throughout this
discussion, and in previous discussions, you have consistently refused to
discuss the relevant research. Instead, you have simply repeated the same
strawman arguments even after I have shown that the research refutes them.
This is simply a new tactic to avoid the real issue. Well, this discussion
obviously cannot move forward until you agree to discuss the research.
>
> I know this, that
> for many years Fox tried all kinds of combinations of amino acids before he
> hit on one that worked.
>
Your implication is that he then never varied that combination. That
characterization is wrong. Once he learned that he needed to have
dicarboxylic amino acids in order to facilitate polymerization, he
experimented with a wide variety of combinations, some containing as little
as 10% dicarboxylic amino acid content; they all produced proteinoids. He
descibes this research in his books and his papers.
>
> That chemists have been able to expand on his
> repertory of tricks since is not surprising....
>
Denigrating Fox does not refute his experimental results, Art, and neither
does characterizing his research as mere trickery. You have never provided
any evidence that anyone considered him to be a charlatan, yet you continue
to claim or imply that he was. That only reinforces the fact that you cannot
effectively refute the research.
>
> ...but look how carefully they
> have crafted the conditions for their reactions.
>
All experiments are carefully crafted to achieve specific results, Art, even
geological experiments. To now claim that the very conditions that validated
the results of these experiments in the first place actually invalidates them
is hypocritical.
Besides, proteinoids have been synthesized under a very wide set of
conditions. In fact, I am not aware of any tested set of conditions that did
not produce proteinoids.
>
> It is not obvious in the
> papers, but it will be obvious to you if you try to get a reaction without
> having the appropriate "random" conditions.
>
According to the literature, the only conditions that are absolutely required
to make proteinoids are an anhydrous mixture of amino acids containing either
glycine, glutamate, aspartate and/or lysine, and a temperature range between
50 and 200 degrees. Beyond that, everything else can be random.
>
> I will be in the field for a month and will not be able to respond to your
> comments until after I return in early July. So I will quit with this:
> please try the reactions for yourself, not using the conditions others have
> suggested starting with pure amino acids, but start with for example, the
> mix of all of the chemicals produced in the Miller experiment for starters.
>
For the third time, Art, that experiment has already been done; you still get
proteinoids.
Stop ignoring the research.
Kevin L. O'Brien