DT wrote: "The following article should be enjoyed by John and George: ... " > > http://www.physorg.com/news168875229.html > - > > "... the work nonetheless brings us one step closer to understanding how Life first began." - NO it doesn't! At least the author should have said,'might have begun'. - I should be lots more direct: The article proves 'nothing'. The chemistry, guided by human intelligence, starts far down the road from a simple inorganic/organic beginning of a spontaneous process to start an origin-of-life scenario. Further we were not there at the time the true process began (3.8 billion years ago). Any re-creation that is accepted as THE process is only an assumed re-creation. There well may be more than one way to do this, or only one way. We do not know. - If you travel to Banff Canada you can tour to the Burgess Shale and see it from a distance at Emerald Lake, and if you look down at rocks you are walking on, trilobites will pop up at Moraine Lake. This article shows how difficult it is to analyze fossils and figure out exactly how they lived and ate. - http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090807/full/news.2009.811.html