While it appears there is some scientific validity to micro-evolution within species over great periods of time, there is nothing in the scientific literature that clearly substantiates macro-evolution. What good is a billion year process of random mutations, translocations, and deletions if the vast majority of these molecular changes are detrimental to the host? Even if the mutation had no immediate negative or positive effect upon a chemical reaction, what good is it if one can only "hope" that it is to be followed by umpteen further random molecular changes which "may" ultimately confer a minicule advantage to the cell???
Now that's what I call Positive Thinking. If I just stand here in the Mohave Desert with my thumb out eventually a 57 mint Chevy with 4 (count'em) 4 beautiful naked blond UCLA coeds with a case of ice-cold beer will give me a ride and offer to have my children..........ok, it might happen........! But, I doubt it!
The reason is quite simple. Mutations occur on a molecular scale. The vast majority of molecular mutations (that is to say the end effect they may have upon an individual cell) are usually seen as negative negative and provide no distinct advantage to the cell or cellular process(es) it affects.
The clotting process of blood is an extremely complicated cascade of proteins and enzymatic relationships. One strains to imagine the plethora of random mutations that would have had to have occurred fortuitously to produce such a complicated pathway...especially since any random mutation that did not immediately confer a molecular or cellular advantage upon its host would be deleted.
What is the advantage of a random mutation that will yet require 10 or 20 future random mutations to complete what is supposed to be a pathway of such complication that it took modern science decades to unlock the secrets of blood clotting?
Now if you know of macro-events where say a land mammal, in a sudden and unexplained generational change altered its family or order, I'm sure we'd all love to hear about it.
It is much easier to see intelligent design in the complexity of life around us than it is to believe that Darwin's theory of evolution clearly, definitively, finally, and totally provides an unambiguous answer to where we came from.
So from a person such as yourself who has firmly predicted the formation of "life" from amino acids within the next 20 years, it comes as no surprise that you would hold Darwin up as your saviour. Naturally, you are entitled to your opinion, as were many of the so-called "great thinkers" of the past who were ultimately shown to be either incorrect or charlatans.
Since you seem extremely knowledgeable re: "life" perhaps you could enlighten us as to exactly what "life" is? What type of "force" is it? How did it begin, how does it begin, how does it end, how is it created, by whom was it created, how does one analyze it, bottle it, re-create it, define it, capture it??? I, for one, would love to hear your exposition!
Such a prediction by soliton is utterly ridiculous and completely unscientific. It is RNA that produces amino acids. Amino acids do not produce either RNA or DNA, they are just constituent parts of proteins when assembled properly by living things. You can take all the amino acids you want, all the proteins you wish and you will never get a single strand of DNA let alone a living organism.