> The time interval between 4.45 GYA and 3.80 GYA is still 650 MY, which is
> the entire time since the hayday of the Ediacaran fauna. I have to say that
> still seems like plenty of time to me.
It is plenty of time - that's for sure. But is it plenty of time for
> I know you don't agree with this assessment, but so far your only reasons
> have amounted to vague assertions about the difficulty of abiogenetic
> processes and the violence of bolide impacts. What I would like to know is
> if you have any specific, concrete reasons for questioning the adequacy of
> this amount of time? I mean, let's take a page from Neal Roys posts: can
> you propose any testable causal mechanisms that would demonstrate that even
> this length of time is inadequate?
Aboigenesis advocates have two problems to address: the origin of a
chemical structure that appears irreducibly complex and the origin of
biological information. I think all are agreed that no one has yet
proposed a mechanism or mechanisms for solving these problems. In
the absence of a mechanism, time is of no value: chemicals settle
down to an equilibrium state the longer they are left to stew. This
is the basis that I question the adequacy of time.
However, knowing that many people are seeking mechanisms, I am
interested in clarifying the constraints that models have to satisfy.
Hence my posts on this subject. When viable mechanisms are proposed,
it will be possible to assess whether the time constraints are
David J. Tyler.