but you can't seriously think that the article has anything to do with abiogenesis, can you?
What you have here is a purely chemical reaction,
Abiogenesis was purely chemical reactions too.
In other words, there isn't a single element of what distinguishes biology from chemistry.
I know, right! Well, biology IS chemistry (and chemistry is physics). There is no distinction.
What do YOU think distinguishes biology from chemistry?
Information - the RNA is merely undergoing chemical reactions, it is not following "instructions" (e.g. DNA) to regenerate.
DNA merely undergoes chemical reactions and does not rely on following instruction in the sense of containing actual information.
As far as "abiogenesis" is concerned, this experiment is about as relevant as dropping alka-seltzer in a glass of water, and noticing that the chemical composition of the solution changes.
Maybe if the creationists were saying that god is required for making an effervescent liquid...
Whether or not "Darwinian Processes" as defined in the post above are common, is irrelevant to the validity of Evolution or Creation as an explanation of the origin of life. Support for natural selection as a generic process <> support for Evolution/refutation of Creation.
Just out of curiosity - any evolutionists willing to stand up and admit that recombinant RNA concentrations in a pool of RNA is kinda irrelevant to the idea of abiogenesis?
Its just another baby-step in the right direction. Not some nail in the coffin.
But, sometimes when we talk about abiogenesis, and we get into pre-biotic or non-life chemical reactions, creationists will sometimes argue that the thing has to actually be alive for evolution to work on it. Apparently they are wrong (again).
™ Version 4.2
(1)