Self-sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme

That's rather the point. The "RNA World" is normally classified as part of the abiogenesis question, because it is an attempt to describe what pre-cellular pre-"biological" processes would be necessary to get from the numerous examples of self-constructing complex "organic" molecules we have been studying since Miller-Urey to the real primitive life forms we can observe now such as archaea, bacteria and protozoa.What this experiment shows is one way in which these theoretical RNA organisms themselves might have undergone the natural selection necessary for beneficial increases in complexity and information. All it proves is that these processes can happen, not that that is the way that they did happen.

You don't seem to be able to keep track of who you are responding to, and that's not a particularly good boost to your creationists-not-necessarily-stupid premise. Not my problem really, not in this thread at least, I already conceded the normal creationist position on this, cells are life, raw RNA isn't. In more intelligent arguments I would tend to argue that anything that can reproduce imperfectly and is subject to natural selection might be considered life, but it's not worth arguing here. But that still leaves RNA open to thorough debate. Demonstrates that the sort of processes demonstrated to increase fitness over time for entities which survive them, can exist at the RNA level.I'm not actually a very big supporter of the strong RNA World position, my studies lead me to believe that simple cells (liposomes) appeared long before any such complex nucleic acids. RNA isn't made of amino acids, they are where proteins come from. Nucleic acids are made of bases and chaining elements. Bases are easily produced by trapping the by-products of amino acid production near a chemical power-source, as in the Iron-Sulphur World for example. This is part of the reason I favor liposomes before nucleic acids proper, as these are produced in the same processes and useful in preventing diffusion of the chemicals in question. But being aggressively wrong, is somehow different from being stupidly wrong? Do some more reading, read for comprehension instead of ammunition, and your lack of social skills might not hurt you Quite so bad in this sort of debate.

Right, but I specifically am the last quote before your rant about life and non-life and I conceded a clear distinction, the cell. Bad form, basically what you want to do is rant at the evil atheist / evolutionist / commie / fag / junkie / devil worshipper / internet community, and there's no such faceless whole. I can argue for hours (in a non-aggressive non-stupid way) with scientists who disagree with me about the most basic things like which came first or what math really represents. Nope, we've scorned a person who doesn't understand basic biochemistry yet feels qualified to speak on abiogenesis. Nucleic acids aren't amino acids, chromosomes aren't protein, the processes which create amino acids in nature leave a lot of leftover unused crud which develop, by other processes, into the building-blocks of nucleic acids and lipids and so on. It's like saying if someone had made lead by starting with unleaded gasoline, that would be impressive. Yes, yes it would. Are you seriously not getting this? They have found conditions in which extra-cellular RNA can reproduce successfully for unlimited periods of time! I have to pay serious attention now to the "RNA World" theory again for the first time since the late 90s.Something similar happened with Miller-Urey. The amino acids produced were objectionable for several different reasons, in terms of what we expected to need to make real proteins out of, never mind cells and life. Then Sidney Fox showed that under plausible tidal conditions even these inferior weird racemic aminos could form into proteinoids (polypeptide microspheres) which could grow and reproduce imperfectly, engaging in chemical evolution at the very simple "bubble" level.Microparticle - Wikipedia Here, show the line. Pick the last thing you consider life or the first thing you consider non-life.People, monkeys, frogs, fish, protozoa, ricketsia, archaea, DNA viruses, RNA viruses, prions, liposomes, proteinoidsThis way all we have to do to satisfy your profoundly simplistic idea of what abiogenesis "ought to mean" is show how to get from one side of the line to the other.In real life though, we need to understand every link in the chain from elements to eukaryotes.Edited by Iblis, : Said I wouldn't so of course I will