Classical Science Fades With Major Media Outlets

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!

About these ads

2 thoughts on “Classical Science Fades With Major Media Outlets

  1. Drone Michael: “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. [sic] Yes, classical science is fading with major media outlets!”

    Michael, your logic is even worse than your grammar here. What exactly is your point? That the media aren’t reporting science accurately? (All too true, unfortunately.) That the media is intentionally fostering materialism for its own sake? (Hardly likely.) That science is doing so through the media? (Conspiracy theory.) That “classical” science-is gioving way to some new—therefore evil—kind of science? (What constitutes “classical” science?) That sxcience is becoming weaker—”fading”—because of its reporting by news media?

    Ypour summary might actually be saying something significant, Michael. But what? Inquiring minds would like to know what your point is.

    ==Soc Puppette

  2. Drone Michael: “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.”

    One thing that creationists will never learn is that fact trumps theory. No one knows how wimpy amino acids could have survived in entry,[1] but they did. The Murchison is one of a number of meteorites carryin “wimpy” organic compounds. Not only that—the Murchison amino acids showed a preponderance of the L enantiomorph that is used in all living organisms on Earth.

    Now CMI pulls a shell game. But, they say, these molecules would break apart in the Earth’s environment. Did you spot the implied Earth’s “present” environment? Of course not. All you wish is confirmation of your beliefs. As the saying goes, “Any port in a storm.” Conditions on the pre-biotic Earth were greatly different.

    ======
    [1] Not “re-entry”. Did you think that they started here and got hurled into space somehow and thern fell back? Amazing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s