Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9159 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: K.Rose
Happy Birthday: CosmicChimp
Post Volume: Total: 914,660 Year: 1,917/9,624 Month: 1,350/567 Week: 296/601 Day: 39/32 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Could RNA start life?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9840
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


(4)
Message 10 of 105 (682670)
12-04-2012 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by dayalanand roy
12-04-2012 12:50 AM


Nucleic acids are the information storage system of life. When there was no life, why did nature invent a storage system to store the information about sometning (Life) which was still not existent, and hence there was no information to store.
In the same way that Nature is able to give a body of water the information it needs to form puddles that perfectly form themselves to match the shape of the depression in the ground.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dayalanand roy, posted 12-04-2012 12:50 AM dayalanand roy has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9840
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 29 of 105 (682991)
12-06-2012 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by dayalanand roy
12-06-2012 5:52 AM


Re: Re RNA
However, the difference between the animal trail in snow and RNA is that we have to derive information from the former and it is a passive information, but RNA is solely a copy, and an active copy of information, whether we derive or not, it will deliver its information to the protein synthesising machinery.
The type of information you are talking about is no different than the type of information in any chemical reaction. The information contained in RNA is it's physical and chemical properties. We can not replace RNA with a piece of paper with tiny letters written on it and expect the same result.
In human written language the letters carry the information. In biology, the information is the ink and paper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by dayalanand roy, posted 12-06-2012 5:52 AM dayalanand roy has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9840
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 63 of 105 (724599)
04-18-2014 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by dayalanand roy
12-04-2012 12:50 AM


As we know, still majority of evolutionists believe in an RNA world hypothesis.
At best, you could say that atheists still believe that scientific research holds our best chance at finding out how life originated on this planet. The RNA World hypothesis is not a belief, nor one held by atheists. It is simply an area of scientific research.
Nucleic acids are the information storage system of life. When there was no life, why did nature invent a storage system to store the information about sometning (Life) which was still not existent, and hence there was no information to store.
You are ascribing anthropomorphic attributes to nature. That's the first problem.
Also, you are looking at it from the direction. Chemistry produces nucleotides which later become storage systems for biological information. It was the process of evolution that instills the type of information you are talking about.
Similarly, when there was no lfe, there was no information about it, and hence no question to store it, and hence no question to invent an storage system to store it.
The information for forming nucleotide polymers was already present in the process of chemical interactions before life ever came about.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dayalanand roy, posted 12-04-2012 12:50 AM dayalanand roy has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9840
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


(2)
Message 64 of 105 (724600)
04-18-2014 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Ed67
04-18-2014 9:51 AM


Re: Progress made in baby steps ...
Could RNA start life?
We don't know.
The reason that scientists are looking into RNA as a candidate is that it can act as both a genetic molecule and as a protein. It is the chicken and the egg all in one. RNA can be used to pass on heritable traits (i.e. act as DNA), and it can also be used as a catalyst for important metabolic and replicative processes (i.e. act as proteins).
Could RNA start life without the assistance of an intelligent designer?
We don't know. However, looking for natural causes for natural phenomena has worked so well in the past that it seems foolish to not look for a natural cause in the case of the origin of life.
Even more interesting is that people who do claim that life required an intelligence to create it are not doing any research to support that claim.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Ed67, posted 04-18-2014 9:51 AM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Ed67, posted 04-20-2014 9:36 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9840
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 76 of 105 (724929)
04-22-2014 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Ed67
04-20-2014 9:36 PM


Re: Back to the Main Topic (sort of)
Good point. But when the search for natural causes gets to the origin of life, it stalls out.
If we abandonded research that stalled out in the past, we would still be banging rocks together.
There has been no naturalistic answer in the half century since discovering the structure of DNA. The reason is that, at the level of the cell, virtually all of the molecular systems exhibit irreducible complexity, and the code embedded in the DNA sequence is something that can not yet be explained without positing an intelligent designer.
Sorry, but a God of the Gaps is the most horrid argument I have ever seen. If there is a God, he has to be insulted by it.
We tried for hundreds of years to produce machines that flew. We couldn't do it. Did that mean that fairies kept birds aloft? This is the type of logic you are using.
For the Biological research establishment to admit that, scientifically speaking, there is room in the origin of life for an intelligent designer, would require an admirable example of scientific self-criticism.
No one is trying to exclude an intelligent designer. There just happens to be no evidence for one, and even those who claim that there is a designer fail to do any research to test the idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Ed67, posted 04-20-2014 9:36 PM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 9:06 AM Taq has replied
 Message 79 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 9:20 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9840
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 81 of 105 (724999)
04-23-2014 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Ed67
04-23-2014 9:06 AM


Re: Back to the Main Topic (sort of)
You don't have to "claim that there is a designer" to do research on the idea. The current research establishment is free to do real research based on Design Theory, it just chooses not to.
What types of research are they not doing? What experiments would they run?
The Discovery Institute, on the other hand, has a small lab up and running, which took decades to do (as is the norm) and will probably take decades to grow to the point of having enough researchers to 'dig in' to the subject.
Two years ago, I set up a lab in 2 months. It doesn't take decades. All it takes is money, and the Discovery Institute is swimming in it.
Don't you find it interesting that you look down on scientists that are doing research on abiogenesis, and yet you exalt scientists who propose intelligent design when they aren't doing any scientific research on the idea?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 9:06 AM Ed67 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9840
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 82 of 105 (725000)
04-23-2014 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Ed67
04-23-2014 9:20 AM


Re: Back to the Main Topic (sort of)
Argument from personal opinion.
"Scientists don't know how life could originate through abiotic processes, therefore God must have done it."
That is your argument. It is a God of the Gaps fallacy. It is an argument from ignorance.
Confessions of personal FAITH in the current research program.
Now you consider the very act of doing research as having faith. How pathetic.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 9:20 AM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 1:20 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9840
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 99 of 105 (725286)
04-25-2014 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Ed67
04-24-2014 1:20 PM


Re: Back to the Main Topic (sort of)
So, do you consider the discovery of a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life inevitable?
I don't think it is inevitable, but I do think it would be a crime not to look for plausible pathways for abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis research is important because our curiosity is important. That's the whole point of scientific discovery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 1:20 PM Ed67 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