Self-sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme

When you really examine it, what are the differences between organic and inorganic on a molecular level? It is generally the same compounds we're dealing with. The only changes in things like peptide bonds and amino acids.Surely we look at a rock and we look at a human and to differentiate between living and non-living is easy. But on the molecular level the line between living and non-living is blurred for the simple fact that "growing" cannot be the sole qualifier. Crystals grow, but I doubt you would claissfy that as living. What then is the spark of life?I echo RAZD and also ask, what is your definition of life on the molecular level?

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

There has to be a starting point in any investigation. God did it is not a sufficient answer. Even supposing that the Creator (whatever that might be) is responsible, isn't it in the best interest of everyone to find out why that is and how it happened? Anything less emasculates science and renders it moot.We could have been satisfied with gravity as just being the way things are and never bothered to find out the details of how it works, but we didn't. We endeavored to figure out why that is, regardless if God is the ultimate cause or if it were mere happenstance.How life happens is still a valid question then, regardless of whether or not an evolutionist wants to know or a creationist. The only real debate, and one that is neither completely verifiable nor falsifiable, is whether or not random processes brought about life or whether it was directed by the hand of a Creator. In my mind it doesn't really matter because there is still room for investigation either way. The only argument then is the interpretation of the evidence.An RNA-first hypothesis could mean that chemicals bonded by chance allowing for the possibility of life. It could also mean that a Creator guided those bonds on order to create life. Either way, it's worth a look.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Since science operates solely on the investigation of physical world, it's not so strange that materialism be the guide. Think about it. Secondly, I don't see this as a tactic so much as it is a way of clarifying. You can't demand that the difference between life and non-life is so great and then not be able to yourself define it. That seems like a reasonable and simple request if the gulf between organic and inorganic so enormous to bridge. That's true but ultimately irrelevant to the topic at hand. I see you shifting goals right before my eyes. We're currently discussing matter which is therefore a materialistic subject. Now that you can't seem to define what life is, you're shifting goals away by:1. Being accusatory of an evolutionist conspiracy
2. Bringing up irrelevant topics It's not? The sky is blue is given in philosophical terms then? The fact that we see the sky as blue is completely a natural phenomenon. I don't see the relevance. This non-sequitur highlights the fundamental difference between your inability to understand materialism and your inability to to deride evolutionists about life from non-life in one instance, and yet further highlight your inability to define the difference. Two different things. If you are referring to clinical death, the cat would cease to have respirations, brain activity, or a pulse. If you're looking at cellular activity, the cells are still alive for some time.But lets not be coy here. We're clearly speaking about the demarcation between life and non-life on the molecular level. See how the question is now qualified! Dead cats and living cats are irrelevant. You are obfuscating. EvC is a DEBATE forum. If you're looking for an echo chamber you've found the wrong place. Yes, but one cannot do without the other, right? That is why they are called "Building Blocks," because one builds off of the other. So the investigation is trying to see if life began in the RNA world first. Yes, but RNA is a very similar molecule to DNA. There are only two chemical differences between the two, and it it can reproduce on its own, performing the tasks of both DNA and enzymes.Look, I've argued here a few months back when some people said that abiogenesis must have been the way it went down. I argued that there is still a chicken and egg problem and we don't know shit. However, your tone seems to indicate that you are not receptive to anything an evolutionist has to say. That's the wrong spirit. You should only care about truth, whatever truth may be.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

I don't think we'll be seeing much of him any time soon. He came in here with a taunting hubris that was swiftly and decisively assassinated. If I were a betting man I'd wager that he probably rules the roost on some other forum and stumbled upon EvC. He quickly came to find out that EvC isn't your run of the mill debate forum and, with tail between his legs, scurried back to his home website where he can thrash the competition instead of being thrashed.You are right to say that so many of the same manufactured PRATT's are thrown around that people have a tendency to cut to the chase and not bother with the formalities. Perhaps a little more restraint and patience could be exhibited. Even still, I think in this case the main catalyst was the ego in which was flaunted so confidently (recklessly from EvC's perspective). I'll second that.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal