A lot of good it did. chinglu just doesn't know when to throw in the towel.
You are admitting here that you did not read the article you posted in support of your pseudoscience nonsense.
You cited Shapiro, who addressed the prebiotic world in his paper. But evidently you never bothered to read it. Either that or you simply can't understand what you read. Evidently you are afflicted by both problems -- failing to research the claims you stole from Creationism, and failing to understand whatever research eventually comes up, such as now is evident in your fumbling of the Shapiro papers.
That's a perfect example of mangling Shapiro. What you mean to say is
Shapiro concludes that that first came a pre-RNA world which did not rely on a primordial soup of all four nucleotides assumed present by Gilbert
False and mangled. The phrase "come up with a model" is bogus. Shapiro's 1999 paper on prebiotic cytosine is not a report on any modelling he did. It's a survey of numerous studies by others who investigated viable ways to correct Gilbert's ignorance about the unlikelihood that prebiotic cytosine was available at the outset of RNA synthesis.
I don't have to prove squat. I am not asserting anything here. I am rebutting your nonsense posts. But what an utterly moronic thing to say. You're just dying to tell us life magically appeared out of thin air, aren't you? And this is why you've persisted for so long in attempting to confuse gullible readers about the constancy of the speed of light -- so you can claim that radiometric dating is flawed. What a pile of crap.
Go read Shapiro yourself, you undercover Creationist.
:spank:
from the last paragraph of Shapiro's 1999 paper:
The first living system used a replicator constructed of more accessible and stable components. A number of possibilities may exist, with the clay system of A.G. Cairns-Smith (74) perhaps the best known. (ii) Life began with cycles of autocatalytic reactions. Storage and transfer of information at the polymer level came later. A number of writers have discussed this possibility, including F. Dyson (75) and S. Kauffman (76). One possible system has been described in detail by G. Wächtershäuser (77).
As you see nothing is lost from his death concerning the state of the science of abiogenesis since he was only a reviewer, not a proponent, of any original hypothesis.
All that's left for you now is to go study these works. Gawd forbid you should actually try to learn something rather than renouncing what you haven't ever bothered to study. Of course with that knowledge comes the awful duty to tell the truth back to your hillbilly congregations--that life did actually evolve out of chemical soup after all.
Now here's a crying towel. :bawl: Just cry me a river. I know how disappointing it can be to discover that you were lied to. Poor little chinglu. No more ice cream castles in the air. No more immortality. Believe me, we feel your pain.