There is a lot of competition out there, the internet has transformed news with more variety than ever before! This is one of the reasons why major media outlets that report on science have been abandoning the classic science approach for reporting. Instead, they have settled for more bold conclusions which go way beyond the evidence especially when it pertains to evolution.
Here are a couple examples…
Science daily reports…“We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, a component of RNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space,” said Michel Nuevo, research scientist at NASA’s Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. “We are showing that these laboratory processes, which simulate occurrences in outer space, can make a fundamental building block used by living organisms on Earth.”
Under specialized conditions, they create one of the pyrimidines in RNA. But in the real world, they didn’t explain how “whimpy” [sic] molecules would have survived re-entry or concentrated in significant amounts to do any good. This stuff mentioned in science daily isn’t new, Jonathan Sarfati discussed the origin of life, the same speculation in which they are trying to use today.
Responding to this evolutionary storyline which goes like this…
“Experiments conducted under conditions intended to resemble those present on primitive Earth have resulted in the production of some of the chemical components of proteins, DNA, and RNA. Some of these molecules also have been detected in meteorites from outer space and in interstellar space by astronomers using radiotelescopes. Scientists have concluded that the “building blocks of life” could have been available early in Earth’s history.”
Jonathan Sarfati writes…
Even if we granted that the ‘building blocks’ were available, it does not follow that they could actually build anything. For example, under plausible prebiotic conditions, the tendency is for biological macromolecules to break apart into the ‘building blocks’, not the other way round. Also, the ‘building blocks’ are likely to react in the wrong ways with other ‘building blocks’, for example, sugars and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds react destructively with amino acids and other amino (–NH2) compounds, to form imines (>C=N), a common cause of browning in foods.
Furthermore, some of the building blocks are very unstable. A good example is ribose, which is obviously essential for RNA, and hence for the RNA-world hypothesis of the origin of life.10 A team including the famous evolutionary origin-of-life pioneer Stanley Miller, in PNAS, found that the half life (t½) of ribose is only 44 years at pH 7.0 (neutral) and 0°C. It’s even worse at high temperatures—73 minutes at pH 7.0 and 100°C.11 This is a major hurdle for hydrothermal theories of the origin of life. Miller, in another PNAS paper, has also pointed out that the RNA bases are destroyed very quickly in water at 100°C—adenine and guanine have half lives of about a year, uracil about 12 years, and cytosine only 19 days.
Most researchers avoid such hurdles with the following methodology: find a trace of compound X in a spark discharge experiment, claim ‘see, X can be produced under realistic primitive-earth conditions’. Then they obtain pure, homochiral, concentrated X from an industrial synthetic chemicals company, react it to form traces of the more complex compound Y. Typically, the process is repeated to form traces of Z from purified Y, and so on. In short, the evolutionists’ simulations have an unacceptable level of intelligent interference.
On another subject, ‘missing links’ is always a great example how the media abandons classic science for hype. The BBC tries to captivate their readers with this…
“Researchers have discovered a fossil skeleton that appears to link the earliest dinosaurs with the large plant-eating sauropods.”
Could this be a gap closer? Could it piece back together the many broken pieces in this hypothesis? According to evolutionary dating flawed method, it is believed to have lived during early Jurassic. However, they start using an oxymoron, by calling it an extinct “living fossil” because the transition is missing so they believe it could have happened much earlier for which there is no evidence! In other words, this animal appeared too late in the record therefore not an actual ancestor, then speculate there must have been a transition somewhere in history that happened. So the BBC was a bit misleading, it’s not a gap closer! Not even close!
Trying to captivate it’s readers while giving an illusion in order to try and stir up support for naturalism being able to design life from the bottom up. Yes, classical science is fading with major media outlets!