Could RNA start life?

Okay, you've all made some very good points. I'm glad I brought it up to get your views on the topic of sensationalizing of origin-of-life science, but I grant your main point, so let's get back to the topic, shall we?Could RNA start life?Of course anything 'could have' happened. But the interesting question is:"Could RNA start life without the assistance of an intelligent designer?Is my question still on the topic?

Razd, you use some strange reasoning: [qs="RAZD"]Hi dayalanand roy, welcome to the fray.
As we know, still majority of evolutionists believe in an RNA world hypothesis. ...
Wrong.Many accept that the RNA hypothesis may be true, many are skeptical of it being true and are waiting for more information.... However, I have a problem in imbibing this theory. ...
That would appear to be a personal problem, not a scientific one. Whether or not you accept the theory of gravity has no effect at all on the behavior of gravity.[qs] First, you insist that some scientists are skeptical about the RNA world hypothesis, then you berate the person for his own skepticism.LOL you're funny.

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. 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. 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.

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). 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.

You'd have to show how it couldn't. For that we'd need to know more about the origin of RNA. It seems though, that every time this is done for other questions, it has never been concluded that a designer is needed.So all your work is ahead of you. Good luck.- Oni

Evidence from experiments are pointing strongly in the direction that the "RNA world" was an intermediate stage between chemical replication and our current "DNA world" ... especially when you consider how similar RNA is to DNA. It is conceivable that DNA could evolve from RNA, rather than develop on it's own. So why would a vastly intelligent designer start with a half vast system of replication rather than build the DNA world from the start?Or, why would a vastly intelligent designer not design a system where life develops and then evolves without needing assistance along the way -- if they designed the RNA world to produce the DNA world, why not design the universe to produce the RNA world? You missed the / before the last qs -- that's the "close" command.

quote:

---

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

​

RAZD writes:

​

quotes are easy

---

Denial is not skepticism, disbelief is not skepticism, opinion is not skepticism, rejection is not skepticism; rather they are all (emotional) responses (to information that is contrary to your worldview). These all carry (emotional) resistance to accepting the (new) concept/s.Scientific skepticism on the other hand would hold that the evidence is not complete enough to show that the concept is valid (even when the concept is not contrary to their worldview). This shows (non-emotional) caution to accepting the (new) concept/s.In science skepticism is balanced by confidence that accrues as theories are tested and tested and tested without being invalidated.The theory of evolution is one that has been extensively tested and extensively validated without any hint of invalidation, for over 150 years now, and this gives us a lot of confidence that it is a valid explanation of the diversity of life.The theory/ies regarding abiogenesis are not so well tested and there are still unknown facets for a natural process for the development of life, and this gives us low confidence in the various processes under discussion being valid parts of the final explanation -- they could be part of the process or some other yet unknown process may be better. How words are used is important to conveying information properly, so that what you say is understood in the way you mean it. Science has a tendency to use terms to mean specific things in order to clearly convey information.See Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. for further discussion.Edited by RAZD, : confidenceEdited by RAZD, : a

I didn't say anything about secrets. But yes, it is pretty much the press seeking out stories rather than the scientific community seeking publicity.

Not exactly. Science has to show how the DNA code sequences needed to build life COULD have originated by naturalistic means. And so far it hasn't, though scientists have been trying for over 50 years.

The goal is never to disprove god or supernatural means with every discovery.But you could show without a doubt that it CAN NOT happen naturally by simply showing how it couldn't.Because, simply saying science hasn't shown us how it happened naturally doesn't prove it HAD TO BE supernatural means.The question is could RNA start life. Many here have shown how it could. You have presented NOTHING to show how it couldn't.- Oni

If a DNA or RNA molecule can exist - and it can - then there is no question about whether it "could" have originated by naturalistic means. Scientists aren't trying to show that it "could" happen. That's a foregone conclusion. They're trying to figure out a pathway by which it does happen. When/if they do, it won't necessarily be the same pathway by which it did happen.

Good point. But when the search for natural causes gets to the origin of life, it stalls out. 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.Is it possible that intelligence can exist without a living physical body to sustain it?
Is it possible that a living physical body can exist without intelligence to design it?There's a bare, logical possibility for both questions; it's just our viewpoint that results in which option you believe to be MORE LIKELY. But without more information than science can provide, there's no basis for committing either way. More information is needed.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.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

What I've never understood is why and how the proponents of ID conclude that it is the only option to current biological understanding. Also it does not seem to matter much if the ID is in no way form or fashion falsifiable, if the ID has never produced a single original thought but only pathetic rebuttals and if the inherent dishonest nature of the ID so nicely portrayed in the Wedge Document is called out in the open.Altogether I'd be willing to conclude that the proponents of ID are intellectually dishonest and are only doing that because of their religion. There is nothing admirable about that, nothing at all.

Not at all. All there would need to be is independent, objective evidence of a designer that we can then say may have played a role in designing life on Earth, and more than likely on other planets too.- Oni

Gosh, a whole 50 years has past and we haven't solved abiogenesis ... therefore ... what? A falsified PRATT: CB200: Irreducible complexity

quote:

---

1. Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:
   ​
   • deletion of parts
   • addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
   • change of function
   • addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
   • gradual modification of parts
   ​
   All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).
   ​
   Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Melndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.

---

Just some of the falsification information. Essentially "irreducible complexity" is a useless term that fails to describe reality.Here is a visual example: Each of the layers you see are composed of blocks of rock held in place by gravity and friction: remove one of those rocks and the arch fails (either part of it falls or the whole falls). So it is "irreducibly complex" -- yet it's natural formation is easily described.Layers form and are lithified
They are uplifted and warped
The layers crack into closely fitting boulders
Rock layers underneath are removed by erosionVoila a natural arch similar to a roman arch complete with "keystone" architecture. and which does not mean that it can't ever be explained by science, just that the currently tested explanations are incomplete ... NOR have the current hypothesis been invalidated. Hardly a "stalled" dead issue. .. if you want to leap to a self indulgent untestable unscientific theistic\philosophical answer instead of pursuing a scientific one. Philosophical questions are not scientific until you can test them -- if they are testable and if they are falsifiable.Can you falsify the existence of an intelligence without a physical body to sustain it?Can you falsify that a living physical body can exist without intelligence to design it? by natural means? ... will this be falsified when abiogenesis succeeds?How do these philosophical questions relate to science? If more information is needed then any conclusion is a leap of faith, not a scientifically derived one. But there already is room: provide a testable hypothesis and then go test it. Publish results in peer reviewed journals and voila: science done. The room is there, you just have to go into the room rather than complain from outside.Until you can provide us with a scientifically testable methodology to determine the existence of such intelligence and how it behaves, how it actualizes the designs, it is just another unsubstantiated hypothetical concept -- valid for philosophy perhaps, but not yet ready for science.Unanswered questions from Message 66:

quote:

---

Of course anything 'could have' happened. But the interesting question is:
"Could RNA start life without the assistance of an intelligent designer?

​

So why would a vastly intelligent designer start with a half vast system of replication rather than build the DNA world from the start?

​

Or, why would a vastly intelligent designer not design a system where life develops and then evolves without needing assistance along the way -- if they designed the RNA world to produce the DNA world, why not design the universe to produce the RNA world?

---

Again I direct your attention to Is ID properly pursued?, rather than replicate it here. If you can afford the time to read the ID concepts of irreducible complexity, surely an honest approach is to also read articles critical of how ID is implemented ... unless you aren't really interested in answers, in reality ...Have fun.

There's your problem: If not, the "Intelligent Designer" would have to be an alien lifeform and not some "god". Then who/what designed it?