Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9200 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Allysum Global
Post Volume: Total: 919,248 Year: 6,505/9,624 Month: 83/270 Week: 79/37 Day: 8/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Self-sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 52 (559779)
05-11-2010 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by dcarraher
05-11-2010 2:28 PM


Re: ...find a creationist as ignorant as an evolutionist
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by dcarraher, posted 05-11-2010 2:28 PM dcarraher has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 11 of 52 (559788)
05-11-2010 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by dcarraher
05-11-2010 4:31 PM


Re: Of course it's chemical
Well, biology IS chemistry (and chemistry is physics). There is no distinction.
This explains alot, really. If you see no distinction between chemistry and biology, no line of demarcation that says "this is life" and "this is not", then abiogenesis is not an issue because the very word has no meaning - life is non-life, so no need to explain life from non-life.
I'll take this line by line...
If you see no distinction between chemistry and biology,
Care to point it out, specifically?
Biology is essentially macro-chemistry. Everything going on inside your body is the result of chemical reactions. Show me the difference.
no line of demarcation that says "this is life" and "this is not",
Sure, I can look at a rock and rhino and say that the one is not alive but the other is... but that's beside the point. If we zoom in to the atomic scale, we cannot distinguish between the calcium in the rock and the calcium in the rhino's horn. There is nothing special about either one. They will both react chemically according to the physical and chemical laws.
And even at the cellular level, what we see is just a bunch of chemical reactions going on. Same reactions as if they were in a beaker.
then abiogenesis is not an issue because the very word has no meaning - life is non-life, so no need to explain life from non-life.
When you get down to the nitty-gritty of abiogenesis, at the point where non-life is emerging into life, there is not going to be a "line" dividing the two. We're gonna have a big grey blur of things that are something in between... and its still going to be chemical reactions.
Disqualified.
Non-sequitor.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by dcarraher, posted 05-11-2010 4:31 PM dcarraher has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 52 (560156)
05-13-2010 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by dcarraher
05-13-2010 2:35 PM


Re: Definitions and Measurements
This is "Information". It is not definable, or measurable, in materialistic terms.
Then you can't say that, with evolution, it only decreases and never increases.
Sorry, you've merely confirmed my assertion that EvC is mostly pointless because we cannot accept each other's base premises.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Peace!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by dcarraher, posted 05-13-2010 2:35 PM dcarraher has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024