Self replicating and evolving RNA molecule created

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220318080244.htm
So all life can come from simple chemical reactions
and must be omnipresent in our universe

On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 11:15:13 PM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> Self replicating and evolving RNA molecule created
>
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220318080244.htm
> So all life can come from simple chemical reactions
> and must be omnipresent in our universe

Where did atomic structure come from?

On a sunny day (Sat, 19 Mar 2022 22:20:47 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Flyguy
<soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote in
<d9ad327f-d21d-4ca8-9f9d-c2a7976b381fn@googlegroups.com>:

>On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 11:15:13 PM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> Self replicating and evolving RNA molecule created
>>
>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220318080244.htm
>> So all life can come from simple chemical reactions
>> and must be omnipresent in our universe
>
>Where did atomic structure come from?

Good question
I have some idea, that is all
[1] I think all matter is conscious.
That does not answer yur question
But I also thing the smaller you look the more you will find
and that our few neurons ? will not - or never find an end to that
We are like an ant creeping up a wall that has no idea
about the construction, the bricks, the reason it was build, what it was build for
and the architect that came up with it.
But it is fun to try to solve the puzzle.
but if [1] is true then we (and the ant) already know all.

So much for just waking up :-)

On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 06:13:03 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Self replicating and evolving RNA molecule created
>
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220318080244.htm
>So all life can come from simple chemical reactions
>and must be omnipresent in our universe

Not exactly "simple chemical reactions."

Of course, the complex replication experiment was designed by the
experimenters, and the replication rounds were forced by laboratory
equipment intelligently programmed.

The big question around things like this is, what's the probability
that a system like this - which is hardly cellular life yet - could
happen accidentally in an inorganic world?

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On a sunny day (Sun, 20 Mar 2022 08:19:46 -0700) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<v5he3h98mg0gd9j1r8eqp21jf239brf0c3@4ax.com>:

>On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 06:13:03 GMT, Jan Panteltje
><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Self replicating and evolving RNA molecule created
>>
>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220318080244.htm
>>So all life can come from simple chemical reactions
>>and must be omnipresent in our universe
>
>Not exactly "simple chemical reactions."
>
>Of course, the complex replication experiment was designed by the
>experimenters, and the replication rounds were forced by laboratory
>equipment intelligently programmed.
>
>The big question around things like this is, what's the probability
>that a system like this - which is hardly cellular life yet - could
>happen accidentally in an inorganic world?

100%
:-)

On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 06:34:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On a sunny day (Sat, 19 Mar 2022 22:20:47 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Flyguy
><soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote in
><d9ad327f-d21d-4ca8-9f9d-c2a7976b381fn@googlegroups.com>:
>
>>On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 11:15:13 PM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>> Self replicating and evolving RNA molecule created
>>>
>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220318080244.htm
>>> So all life can come from simple chemical reactions
>>> and must be omnipresent in our universe
>>
>>Where did atomic structure come from?
>
>Good question
>I have some idea, that is all
>[1] I think all matter is conscious.

Really? So you share the same belief system as - among many other
societies - N. American native indian people?

On a sunny day (Sun, 20 Mar 2022 17:52:20 +0000) it happened Cursitor Doom
<cd@notformail.com> wrote in <icqe3hdhpfcq6kkc2h11uencps6ja2dcdr@4ax.com>:

>On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 06:34:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje
><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On a sunny day (Sat, 19 Mar 2022 22:20:47 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Flyguy
>><soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote in
>><d9ad327f-d21d-4ca8-9f9d-c2a7976b381fn@googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>>On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 11:15:13 PM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>>> Self replicating and evolving RNA molecule created
>>>>
>>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220318080244.htm
>>>> So all life can come from simple chemical reactions
>>>> and must be omnipresent in our universe
>>>
>>>Where did atomic structure come from?
>>
>>Good question
>>I have some idea, that is all
>>[1] I think all matter is conscious.
>
>Really? So you share the same belief system as - among many other
>societies - N. American native indian people?

I am not much of a believer, almost a 'show me' person,
but from experience.

Everything in this universe or whatever you like to call it, is connected.
Every electron that moves is experienced a bit later everywhere else.
Also in the chemical reaction. if you like to call it that way, that we are.

It is all about awareness.

One could perhaps say that if we knew all factors all would unfold in a specific way
where we are just part of the process and what we think and do about things was determined
from the big bang or whatever there was before that, no free will.
But then also all is known for those who understand that process..

Say you want A and A happens, was you wanting A a coincidence or some result from you wanting
or just the bang unfolding that way,
or did you want A because you knew the mechanism of the bang unfolding and knew A would happen
etc etc

To answer your question from an other perspective
- what is consciousness?-
I have often stated that even a sunscreen that closes and open with a little motor and light sensor is 'conscious' of light
add a beeper or voice and it will tell you when it is light and dark and what it is going to do.
We are in that way not much more.
Books have been written about it, what consciousness is,,,
Keep it simple.
An electron is conscious of other electrons as it reacts to their presence by moving.
Its all simple
Maybe it [each] has a story to tell

On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 10:42:42 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 4:20:51 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 11:15:13 PM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> > > Self replicating and evolving RNA molecule created
> > >
> > > https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220318080244.htm
> > > So all life can come from simple chemical reactions
> > > and must be omnipresent in our universe.
> >
> > Where did atomic structure come from?
> Linus Pauling thought that it came from the electron orbitals around the atoms. Or that's what I got taught as an undergraduate in the 1960's.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

No, that doesn't answer my question at all. Where did electrons come from, then, where did neutrons come from, then, where did protons come from, then, where did strong nuclear force come from...?

The idea that the universe just randomly self-assembled MUST assume that SOMETHING existed at some point - where did that SOMETHING come from?

On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 1:42:42 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 4:20:51 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 11:15:13 PM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> > > Self replicating and evolving RNA molecule created
> > >
> > > https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220318080244.htm
> > > So all life can come from simple chemical reactions
> > > and must be omnipresent in our universe.
> >
> > Where did atomic structure come from?
> Linus Pauling thought that it came from the electron orbitals around the atoms. Or that's what I got taught as an undergraduate in the 1960's.

That's something I was recently thinking about. The orbitals are essentially always there. The difference in elements chemical behavior is how many orbitals have electrons in them which, in turn, is determined by the number of protons in the nucleus, the atomic number.

Most of my chemistry knowledge is long gone really. But I wonder if this realization is significant in chemistry. Are there times when there are electrons in orbitals that impact the chemical behavior, other than the number determined by the atomic number. I haven't given this much thought really.. I need to mull on it a bit to see if I can recall anything relating to this from my chemistry background.

One concept that I've never fully considered is the idea of orbital hybridization. SP1, SP2, etc. What is the influence that causes such hybridization? Is it just the presence of another atom with appropriate empty orbitals?

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 2:35:00 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Sat, 19 Mar 2022 22:20:47 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Flyguy
> <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <d9ad327f-d21d-4ca8...@googlegroups.com>:
> >On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 11:15:13 PM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> >> Self replicating and evolving RNA molecule created
> >>
> >> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220318080244.htm
> >> So all life can come from simple chemical reactions
> >> and must be omnipresent in our universe
> >
> >Where did atomic structure come from?
> Good question
> I have some idea, that is all
> [1] I think all matter is conscious.
> That does not answer yur question
> But I also thing the smaller you look the more you will find
> and that our few neurons ? will not - or never find an end to that
> We are like an ant creeping up a wall that has no idea
> about the construction, the bricks, the reason it was build, what it was build for
> and the architect that came up with it.
> But it is fun to try to solve the puzzle.
> but if [1] is true then we (and the ant) already know all.
>
> So much for just waking up :-)

All matter can be just as conscious as anything else.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 2:28:22 PM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Sun, 20 Mar 2022 17:52:20 +0000) it happened Cursitor Doom
> <c...@notformail.com> wrote in <icqe3hdhpfcq6kkc2...@4ax.com>:
> >On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 06:34:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje
> ><pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On a sunny day (Sat, 19 Mar 2022 22:20:47 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Flyguy
> >><soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >><d9ad327f-d21d-4ca8...@googlegroups.com>:
> >>
> >>>On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 11:15:13 PM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> >>>> Self replicating and evolving RNA molecule created
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220318080244.htm
> >>>> So all life can come from simple chemical reactions
> >>>> and must be omnipresent in our universe
> >>>
> >>>Where did atomic structure come from?
> >>
> >>Good question
> >>I have some idea, that is all
> >>[1] I think all matter is conscious.
> >
> >Really? So you share the same belief system as - among many other
> >societies - N. American native indian people?
> I am not much of a believer, almost a 'show me' person,
> but from experience.
>
> Everything in this universe or whatever you like to call it, is connected..
> Every electron that moves is experienced a bit later everywhere else.
> Also in the chemical reaction. if you like to call it that way, that we are.
>
> It is all about awareness.
>
> One could perhaps say that if we knew all factors all would unfold in a specific way
> where we are just part of the process and what we think and do about things was determined
> from the big bang or whatever there was before that, no free will.
> But then also all is known for those who understand that process..

This is not a new thought. It is a rather obvious thought at that.

> Say you want A and A happens, was you wanting A a coincidence or some result from you wanting
> or just the bang unfolding that way,
> or did you want A because you knew the mechanism of the bang unfolding and knew A would happen
> etc etc

Hmmm... the connection between wanting and knowing and happening is a bit tenuous.

> To answer your question from an other perspective
> - what is consciousness?-
> I have often stated that even a sunscreen that closes and open with a little motor and light sensor is 'conscious' of light
> add a beeper or voice and it will tell you when it is light and dark and what it is going to do.
> We are in that way not much more.
> Books have been written about it, what consciousness is,,,

Yes, because defining consciousness is not nearly as simple as you seem to believe.

> Keep it simple.
> An electron is conscious of other electrons as it reacts to their presence by moving.
> Its all simple
> Maybe it [each] has a story to tell

That is a definition of consciousness that has little to offer. Considering such consciousness results in pretty much nothing of value. Ok, so everything has consciousness. So what? Now we need to come up with another term that describes the mind that is not only aware of the other, but the self.. And now we are back where we started.

I would also point out that you are talking about electrons having consciousness, while electrons don't actually exist other than in our minds as a useful construct to explain the nature of the universe.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 15:33:10 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On a sunny day (Sun, 20 Mar 2022 08:19:46 -0700) it happened
>jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
><v5he3h98mg0gd9j1r8eqp21jf239brf0c3@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 06:13:03 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Self replicating and evolving RNA molecule created
>>>
>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220318080244.htm
>>>So all life can come from simple chemical reactions
>>>and must be omnipresent in our universe
>>
>>Not exactly "simple chemical reactions."
>>
>>Of course, the complex replication experiment was designed by the
>>experimenters, and the replication rounds were forced by laboratory
>>equipment intelligently programmed.
>>
>>The big question around things like this is, what's the probability
>>that a system like this - which is hardly cellular life yet - could
>>happen accidentally in an inorganic world?
>
>100%
>:-)

Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 3:23:41 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
> On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 10:42:42 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 4:20:51 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 11:15:13 PM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> > > > Self replicating and evolving RNA molecule created
> > > >
> > > > https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220318080244.htm
> > > > So all life can come from simple chemical reactions
> > > > and must be omnipresent in our universe.
> > >
> > > Where did atomic structure come from?
> > Linus Pauling thought that it came from the electron orbitals around the atoms. Or that's what I got taught as an undergraduate in the 1960's.
> >
> > --
> > Bill Sloman, Sydney
> No, that doesn't answer my question at all. Where did electrons come from, then, where did neutrons come from, then, where did protons come from, then, where did strong nuclear force come from...?
>
> The idea that the universe just randomly self-assembled MUST assume that SOMETHING existed at some point - where did that SOMETHING come from?

Your concept of the requirement for there to have been no beginning, no point of creation of the universe, is not self apparent. Everything in our existence has been a matter of B being caused by A. But there was universe before our existence, going back long enough that there is no reason to think a beginning of the universe is not possible.

Considering what existed before existence, is a category error. The question does not apply any more than asking, what direction is purple? How good does fresh baked bread smell if you have no olfactory organ? In an jet airplane, how many miles do you get to a thought? How tall were you before your grandparents were born?

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 3:56:45 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 15:33:10 GMT, Jan Panteltje
> <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On a sunny day (Sun, 20 Mar 2022 08:19:46 -0700) it happened
> >jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
> ><v5he3h98mg0gd9j1r...@4ax.com>:
> >
> >>On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 06:13:03 GMT, Jan Panteltje
> >><pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Self replicating and evolving RNA molecule created
> >>>
> >>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220318080244.htm
> >>>So all life can come from simple chemical reactions
> >>>and must be omnipresent in our universe
> >>
> >>Not exactly "simple chemical reactions."
> >>
> >>Of course, the complex replication experiment was designed by the
> >>experimenters, and the replication rounds were forced by laboratory
> >>equipment intelligently programmed.
> >>
> >>The big question around things like this is, what's the probability
> >>that a system like this - which is hardly cellular life yet - could
> >>happen accidentally in an inorganic world?
> >
> >100%
> >:-)
> Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.

I guess some people are better at math than others. I hope they showed their work.

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On a sunny day (Sun, 20 Mar 2022 12:56:34 -0700) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<el1f3h11hv05ngtoegd8nhsdg5j57onu5u@4ax.com>:

>On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 15:33:10 GMT, Jan Panteltje
><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On a sunny day (Sun, 20 Mar 2022 08:19:46 -0700) it happened
>>jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
>><v5he3h98mg0gd9j1r8eqp21jf239brf0c3@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 06:13:03 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Self replicating and evolving RNA molecule created
>>>>
>>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220318080244.htm
>>>>So all life can come from simple chemical reactions
>>>>and must be omnipresent in our universe
>>>
>>>Not exactly "simple chemical reactions."
>>>
>>>Of course, the complex replication experiment was designed by the
>>>experimenters, and the replication rounds were forced by laboratory
>>>equipment intelligently programmed.
>>>
>>>The big question around things like this is, what's the probability
>>>that a system like this - which is hardly cellular life yet - could
>>>happen accidentally in an inorganic world?
>>
>>100%
>>:-)
>
>Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.

Proof of 100% is that you are here.

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:09:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On a sunny day (Sun, 20 Mar 2022 12:56:34 -0700) it happened
>jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
><el1f3h11hv05ngtoegd8nhsdg5j57onu5u@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 15:33:10 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On a sunny day (Sun, 20 Mar 2022 08:19:46 -0700) it happened
>>>jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
>>><v5he3h98mg0gd9j1r8eqp21jf239brf0c3@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 06:13:03 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>>><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Self replicating and evolving RNA molecule created
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220318080244.htm
>>>>>So all life can come from simple chemical reactions
>>>>>and must be omnipresent in our universe
>>>>
>>>>Not exactly "simple chemical reactions."
>>>>
>>>>Of course, the complex replication experiment was designed by the
>>>>experimenters, and the replication rounds were forced by laboratory
>>>>equipment intelligently programmed.
>>>>
>>>>The big question around things like this is, what's the probability
>>>>that a system like this - which is hardly cellular life yet - could
>>>>happen accidentally in an inorganic world?
>>>
>>>100%
>>>:-)
>>
>>Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.
>
>Proof of 100% is that you are here.

Somehow. But RNA World requires at least as much faith as "God did
it."

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On a sunny day (Mon, 21 Mar 2022 07:22:21 -0700) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<oe2h3hhavhn01k48a0312vdp12bt56m5sl@4ax.com>:

>On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:09:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje
><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On a sunny day (Sun, 20 Mar 2022 12:56:34 -0700) it happened
>>jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
>><el1f3h11hv05ngtoegd8nhsdg5j57onu5u@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 15:33:10 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On a sunny day (Sun, 20 Mar 2022 08:19:46 -0700) it happened
>>>>jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
>>>><v5he3h98mg0gd9j1r8eqp21jf239brf0c3@4ax.com>:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 06:13:03 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>>>><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Self replicating and evolving RNA molecule created
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220318080244.htm
>>>>>>So all life can come from simple chemical reactions
>>>>>>and must be omnipresent in our universe
>>>>>
>>>>>Not exactly "simple chemical reactions."
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course, the complex replication experiment was designed by the
>>>>>experimenters, and the replication rounds were forced by laboratory
>>>>>equipment intelligently programmed.
>>>>>
>>>>>The big question around things like this is, what's the probability
>>>>>that a system like this - which is hardly cellular life yet - could
>>>>>happen accidentally in an inorganic world?
>>>>
>>>>100%
>>>>:-)
>>>
>>>Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.
>>
>>Proof of 100% is that you are here.
>
>Somehow. But RNA World requires at least as much faith as "God did
>it."

I dunno, I did read that paper and it says on page 1:
<quote>
Here, we continued the serial transfer experiment up to 240
rounds (1200 h). Sequence analysis uncovered that two previously
detected host RNA lineages became sustained and further
diverged into multiple sublineages of host and parasitic RNAs.
The population dynamics of each lineage gradually changed
during the evolution, from dynamically fluctuating stages to
quasi-stable coexistence, suggesting the appearance of co-
replicative relationships among the lineages. Biochemical ana-
lyses supported the co-replication of dominant RNAs in the
different lineages containing a cooperative RNA that replicates all
other members, thus establishing a multiple replicator network.
<end quote>

There are several ways cultures refer to 'God'
Some (India, gurus) say it is the power inside you that you can experience.
Is actually a state of mind caused by love your mama love you pa based 50% hit,
do meditation to feel the difference.
The Christian churches often refer to some external creator.
One common thing I see is that all put one guy (human) in command who then asks for your money,
describes rules you need to follow to 'see' or experience God, and basically are a dictatorship
interwoven with normal politics (everyone not obeying is bad or devil or whatever).
Business models!

There was a reason Jesus tore those stands down at the temple.
The Roman empire made Christianity its religion, commercialization and silly ideas followed
those who disagreed where burned or treated as witches.

Promising liberation after death to the poor if they dance to your tune is as old as the world as is medicine men
doing the rain dance...
Personally I use rain-radar (online here) if I want to go biking ..

On 21/03/2022 15:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:09:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje
> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>>>
>>> Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.
>>
>> Proof of 100% is that you are here.
>
> Somehow. But RNA World requires at least as much faith as "God did
> it."
>

Only for those that don't understand the "RNA World" hypothesis,
theology, or science.

Those that /do/ appreciate the difference know that "God did it" is
completely without any evidence or proof - and always will be (if there
were evidence, it would be science). It is unfalsifiable, untestable,
and is merely presented as an "unquestionable answer".

But believe it if you like - religious freedom is a great idea.

The "RNA World" hypothesis, on the other hand, is based on factual
demonstrations of plausibility and consistency with established science.
It is not a "scientific theory", since we have no evidence for the
details of abiogenesis - there can be no fossil record of the earliest
lifeforms. What we can do is try to establish how realistic it is as
one plausible explanation for abiogenesis. It is doing our best to
handle an unanswerable question, and it's great science.

It is not the only abiogenesis hypothesis, and there are others worth
pursuing - such as "protein first" concepts.

The only concepts /not/ worth pursuing are those that cannot ever be
proven, cannot be replicated, cannot teach us anything or provide
insights to other science or technology, or are purely recursive. Thus
"God did it", "Aliens did it", and the like are all pointless wastes of
time (outside of religions and/or science fiction novels).

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:42:08 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 21/03/2022 15:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:09:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>>>
>>>> Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.
>>>
>>> Proof of 100% is that you are here.
>>
>> Somehow. But RNA World requires at least as much faith as "God did
>> it."
>>
>
>Only for those that don't understand the "RNA World" hypothesis,
>theology, or science.

Nobody understands it. Much less how a self-defining DNA system could
have evolved.

Darwinism is hand-waving. It's just another anti-faith faith.

Youtube has some astounding animations of cell division. DNA programs
thousands of insanely complex, wildly unlikely machines that support
and copy DNA.

>
>
>Those that /do/ appreciate the difference know that "God did it" is
>completely without any evidence or proof - and always will be (if there
>were evidence, it would be science). It is unfalsifiable, untestable,
>and is merely presented as an "unquestionable answer".

That last sentence describes RNA World.

There is no theory, much less proof, about how DNA-based cellular life
could have evolved. "Random mutation and selection" liberates people
from thinking.

>
>But believe it if you like - religious freedom is a great idea.
>
>The "RNA World" hypothesis, on the other hand, is based on factual
>demonstrations of plausibility and consistency with established science.

With absurdly low calculated probabilities. RNA World has become an
ironclad defense against even considering anything else. Biochemical
cancel culture.

People who already know everything don't need to be bothered with
ideas.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On 21/03/22 16:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:42:08 +0100, David Brown
> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
>> On 21/03/2022 15:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:09:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.
>>>>
>>>> Proof of 100% is that you are here.
>>>
>>> Somehow. But RNA World requires at least as much faith as "God did
>>> it."
>>>
>>
>> Only for those that don't understand the "RNA World" hypothesis,
>> theology, or science.
>
> Nobody understands it. Much less how a self-defining DNA system could
> have evolved.

You need to have more faith in people and science.

Once upon a time nobody could predict comets' appearances.

> People who already know everything don't need to be bothered with
> ideas.

You are, we presume, thinking of creationists and
young-earthers, and their equivalent in other cultures.

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:06:27 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 21/03/22 16:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:42:08 +0100, David Brown
>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/03/2022 15:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:09:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>>> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proof of 100% is that you are here.
>>>>
>>>> Somehow. But RNA World requires at least as much faith as "God did
>>>> it."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only for those that don't understand the "RNA World" hypothesis,
>>> theology, or science.
>>
>> Nobody understands it. Much less how a self-defining DNA system could
>> have evolved.
>
>You need to have more faith in people and science.

It's hard to do both simultaneously.

>
>Once upon a time nobody could predict comets' appearances.
>
>
>
>> People who already know everything don't need to be bothered with
>> ideas.
>
>You are, we presume, thinking of creationists and
>young-earthers, and their equivalent in other cultures.

And Darwinists.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On 21/03/2022 17:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:42:08 +0100, David Brown
> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
>> On 21/03/2022 15:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:09:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.
>>>>
>>>> Proof of 100% is that you are here.
>>>
>>> Somehow. But RNA World requires at least as much faith as "God did
>>> it."
>>>
>>
>> Only for those that don't understand the "RNA World" hypothesis,
>> theology, or science.
>
> Nobody understands it. Much less how a self-defining DNA system could
> have evolved.

You seem to be viewing this all as a binary all-or-nothing thing. It is
not.

We have some good ideas of how an RNA World might have come about, how
it might have progressed, and how it might have led to the biological
processes and organisms that we know exist. There's lots we don't know
- that's the nature of science, and why we keep doing scientific
research. In this particular case, there's plenty that we don't know yet.

But that should not stop you being able to understand what the
hypothesis is about.

>
> Darwinism is hand-waving. It's just another anti-faith faith.

Darwinism is solid scientific theory. It's as much "faith" as gravity.

>
> Youtube has some astounding animations of cell division. DNA programs
> thousands of insanely complex, wildly unlikely machines that support
> and copy DNA.
>

Yes, it is wonderful. But only an arrogant fool would look at that all
and declare that it could /not/ have arisen naturally from pre-biotic
chemicals and processes. Only an ignorant fool would declare that it
must have been "designed" in some way, by some being. Only a coward
would throw his hands in the air and say "I can't understand it. It
must have been made by God". Or by robots or aliens, if you won't admit
to your anti-science religion.

Have you ever looked at animations of the Mandelbrot set? It has
amazing intricacies and patterns - details that change and repeat
indefinitely. And yet it all comes from one very simple equation. Have
you ever played the game "Go"? It has very simple pieces, a very simple
board, very simple rules - and yet Go masters regularly learn tens of
thousands of opening sequences before the real game even begins. Have
you looked at a snowflake? Complex things develop by patterns and
combinations of simple things - that is the nature of nature.

>>
>>
>> Those that /do/ appreciate the difference know that "God did it" is
>> completely without any evidence or proof - and always will be (if there
>> were evidence, it would be science). It is unfalsifiable, untestable,
>> and is merely presented as an "unquestionable answer".
>
> That last sentence describes RNA World.

The hypothesis is falsifiable - if evidence is discovered that shows RNA
is not a sufficient basis for abiogenesis, we know the hypothesis is
false. It is testable - we can do experiments with various combinations
of starting chemicals and environments, and see if it produces active
replicating RNA. (That's what the linked article was about.) It is
questionable - that's what the scientists are doing all the time,
questioning.

>
> There is no theory, much less proof, about how DNA-based cellular life
> could have evolved. "Random mutation and selection" liberates people
> from thinking.
>

As I said, you have no understanding of what this is all about. None.
Not a glimmer. It's not just a matter of failing to see the big picture
- you have your eyes tightly closed, fingers in your ears, and you are
shouting "la, la, la, I'm not listening".

Perhaps I'm crazy - apparently Einstein said madness was doing the same
thing repeatedly and expecting different results. But let me correct
you /again/.

The "RNA World" /hypothesis/ is a /hypothesis/ - it is not a scientific
theory. It is not trying to find out how life on earth started. It is
trying to determine if complex RNA can develop from pre-biotic chemicals
known to be found on the early earth, using environmental conditions
that are realistic, and thus demonstrate that RNA is a plausible path
for abiogenesis.

The "RNA World" hypothesis does not cover the step to DNA, though I
think any biochemist will agree that when you have first achieved
cellular metabolising, replicating RNA-based lifeforms then the path to
DNA is relatively reasonable.

Evolution is how life has moved from its earliest beginnings to what we
have now. It is a well-established scientific theory based on vast
quantities of evidence, theoretical work, study, experiments,
predictions, attempts at falsification, and all the rest of the usual
scientific process. There are plenty of details to study in the
mechanisms found in practice, but evolution is as much "fact" as
anything else in science - like the electromagnetic theories that
underlie your work.

Claiming "it liberates people from thing" merely demonstrates your
extraordinary wilful ignorance in the face of countless attempts to
educate you.

>>
>> But believe it if you like - religious freedom is a great idea.
>>
>> The "RNA World" hypothesis, on the other hand, is based on factual
>> demonstrations of plausibility and consistency with established science.
>
> With absurdly low calculated probabilities. RNA World has become an
> ironclad defense against even considering anything else. Biochemical
> cancel culture.
>
> People who already know everything don't need to be bothered with
> ideas.
>

Ah, there we have it. The broken record again. You really are
pathetically predictable.

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:45:04 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 21/03/2022 17:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:42:08 +0100, David Brown
>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/03/2022 15:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:09:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>>> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proof of 100% is that you are here.
>>>>
>>>> Somehow. But RNA World requires at least as much faith as "God did
>>>> it."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only for those that don't understand the "RNA World" hypothesis,
>>> theology, or science.
>>
>> Nobody understands it. Much less how a self-defining DNA system could
>> have evolved.
>
>You seem to be viewing this all as a binary all-or-nothing thing. It is
>not.
>
>We have some good ideas of how an RNA World might have come about, how
>it might have progressed, and how it might have led to the biological
>processes and organisms that we know exist. There's lots we don't know
>- that's the nature of science, and why we keep doing scientific
>research. In this particular case, there's plenty that we don't know yet.
>
>But that should not stop you being able to understand what the
>hypothesis is about.
>
>>
>> Darwinism is hand-waving. It's just another anti-faith faith.
>
>Darwinism is solid scientific theory. It's as much "faith" as gravity.
>
>>
>> Youtube has some astounding animations of cell division. DNA programs
>> thousands of insanely complex, wildly unlikely machines that support
>> and copy DNA.
>>
>
>Yes, it is wonderful. But only an arrogant fool would look at that all
>and declare that it could /not/ have arisen naturally from pre-biotic
>chemicals and processes. Only an ignorant fool would declare that it
>must have been "designed" in some way, by some being. Only a coward
>would throw his hands in the air and say "I can't understand it. It
>must have been made by God". Or by robots or aliens, if you won't admit
>to your anti-science religion.

I never said it couldn't happen by Darwinian mechanisms, or that life
must have been designed. You invent fake quotes because your real
motivation is to fling insults, and to show how much smarter you are
than me.

What I have conjectured is that our life form might have evolved by
something other than RNA World followed by random mutation and
linear-descent selection.

I guess any other ideas, even speculations, are forbidden in your
world.

>
>Have you ever looked at animations of the Mandelbrot set? It has
>amazing intricacies and patterns - details that change and repeat
>indefinitely. And yet it all comes from one very simple equation. Have
>you ever played the game "Go"? It has very simple pieces, a very simple
>board, very simple rules - and yet Go masters regularly learn tens of
>thousands of opening sequences before the real game even begins. Have
>you looked at a snowflake? Complex things develop by patterns and
>combinations of simple things - that is the nature of nature.
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Those that /do/ appreciate the difference know that "God did it" is
>>> completely without any evidence or proof - and always will be (if there
>>> were evidence, it would be science). It is unfalsifiable, untestable,
>>> and is merely presented as an "unquestionable answer".
>>
>> That last sentence describes RNA World.
>
>The hypothesis is falsifiable - if evidence is discovered that shows RNA
>is not a sufficient basis for abiogenesis, we know the hypothesis is
>false. It is testable - we can do experiments with various combinations
>of starting chemicals and environments, and see if it produces active
>replicating RNA. (That's what the linked article was about.) It is
>questionable - that's what the scientists are doing all the time,
>questioning.

So why won't you?

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On 21/03/2022 20:47, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:45:04 +0100, David Brown
> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
>> On 21/03/2022 17:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:42:08 +0100, David Brown
>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/03/2022 15:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:09:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>>>> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Proof of 100% is that you are here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Somehow. But RNA World requires at least as much faith as "God did
>>>>> it."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only for those that don't understand the "RNA World" hypothesis,
>>>> theology, or science.
>>>
>>> Nobody understands it. Much less how a self-defining DNA system could
>>> have evolved.
>>
>> You seem to be viewing this all as a binary all-or-nothing thing. It is
>> not.
>>
>> We have some good ideas of how an RNA World might have come about, how
>> it might have progressed, and how it might have led to the biological
>> processes and organisms that we know exist. There's lots we don't know
>> - that's the nature of science, and why we keep doing scientific
>> research. In this particular case, there's plenty that we don't know yet.
>>
>> But that should not stop you being able to understand what the
>> hypothesis is about.
>>
>>>
>>> Darwinism is hand-waving. It's just another anti-faith faith.
>>
>> Darwinism is solid scientific theory. It's as much "faith" as gravity.
>>
>>>
>>> Youtube has some astounding animations of cell division. DNA programs
>>> thousands of insanely complex, wildly unlikely machines that support
>>> and copy DNA.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it is wonderful. But only an arrogant fool would look at that all
>> and declare that it could /not/ have arisen naturally from pre-biotic
>> chemicals and processes. Only an ignorant fool would declare that it
>> must have been "designed" in some way, by some being. Only a coward
>> would throw his hands in the air and say "I can't understand it. It
>> must have been made by God". Or by robots or aliens, if you won't admit
>> to your anti-science religion.
>
> I never said it couldn't happen by Darwinian mechanisms, or that life
> must have been designed. You invent fake quotes because your real
> motivation is to fling insults, and to show how much smarter you are
> than me.
>

Right - so when you say "Darwinism is hand-waving. It's just another
anti-faith faith", you weren't actually dismissing it?

I wish you would have the guts to stop pissing around, and admit that
you have no regard for science or evidence, but find the world so
confusing and beyond your personal comprehension that you think it was
all made by some supernatural being just for you. After all, if the
great genius John Larkin can't understand it, clearly nobody can - so
all these scientists are making stuff up, or just acting on faith.

(Yes, I know I am paraphrasing.)

> What I have conjectured is that our life form might have evolved by
> something other than RNA World followed by random mutation and
> linear-descent selection.

And again - every time you open your mouth you demonstrate how little
you comprehend, and how little you even bother trying to read. If you
had the faintest clue about the RNA World hypothesis, or had made even a
rudimentary attempt at reading my posts, you'd know the RNA World
hypothesis is not saying that it explains how life on earth came about.
And you'd know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.

>
> I guess any other ideas, even speculations, are forbidden in your
> world.
>

Informed, thoughtful and rational ideas are welcome - as speculative as
you like. Pointless idiocy that has been corrected countless times
already is not so interesting.

>
>>
>> Have you ever looked at animations of the Mandelbrot set? It has
>> amazing intricacies and patterns - details that change and repeat
>> indefinitely. And yet it all comes from one very simple equation. Have
>> you ever played the game "Go"? It has very simple pieces, a very simple
>> board, very simple rules - and yet Go masters regularly learn tens of
>> thousands of opening sequences before the real game even begins. Have
>> you looked at a snowflake? Complex things develop by patterns and
>> combinations of simple things - that is the nature of nature.
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Those that /do/ appreciate the difference know that "God did it" is
>>>> completely without any evidence or proof - and always will be (if there
>>>> were evidence, it would be science). It is unfalsifiable, untestable,
>>>> and is merely presented as an "unquestionable answer".
>>>
>>> That last sentence describes RNA World.
>>
>> The hypothesis is falsifiable - if evidence is discovered that shows RNA
>> is not a sufficient basis for abiogenesis, we know the hypothesis is
>> false. It is testable - we can do experiments with various combinations
>> of starting chemicals and environments, and see if it produces active
>> replicating RNA. (That's what the linked article was about.) It is
>> questionable - that's what the scientists are doing all the time,
>> questioning.
>
> So why won't you?
>

Why don't I do what? Question the hypothesis? Of course I do. I want
to know what chemical soups they are starting with, and how they justify
their choices. I want to know the environment and the basis for that.
I want to know the results. I want to know if their experiments have
been repeated, by the same group and others, and how the results vary.
I want to know about alternative hypotheses - from the same group, and
others. I want to know how well it all fits with the known evidence
from the early earth.

You are trying to create a straw man that the RNA World hypothesis is
"science's unquestioned answer to how life on earth started", combined
with completely unjustified claims of "the maths is against it". You
think that means you can fill the gap with your "God did it"
explanation. But actually it merely shows how little you know, and how
little you care about how little you know.

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 21:18:31 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 21/03/2022 20:47, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:45:04 +0100, David Brown
>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/03/2022 17:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:42:08 +0100, David Brown
>>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 21/03/2022 15:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:09:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>>>>> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Proof of 100% is that you are here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Somehow. But RNA World requires at least as much faith as "God did
>>>>>> it."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Only for those that don't understand the "RNA World" hypothesis,
>>>>> theology, or science.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody understands it. Much less how a self-defining DNA system could
>>>> have evolved.
>>>
>>> You seem to be viewing this all as a binary all-or-nothing thing. It is
>>> not.
>>>
>>> We have some good ideas of how an RNA World might have come about, how
>>> it might have progressed, and how it might have led to the biological
>>> processes and organisms that we know exist. There's lots we don't know
>>> - that's the nature of science, and why we keep doing scientific
>>> research. In this particular case, there's plenty that we don't know yet.
>>>
>>> But that should not stop you being able to understand what the
>>> hypothesis is about.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Darwinism is hand-waving. It's just another anti-faith faith.
>>>
>>> Darwinism is solid scientific theory. It's as much "faith" as gravity.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Youtube has some astounding animations of cell division. DNA programs
>>>> thousands of insanely complex, wildly unlikely machines that support
>>>> and copy DNA.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it is wonderful. But only an arrogant fool would look at that all
>>> and declare that it could /not/ have arisen naturally from pre-biotic
>>> chemicals and processes. Only an ignorant fool would declare that it
>>> must have been "designed" in some way, by some being. Only a coward
>>> would throw his hands in the air and say "I can't understand it. It
>>> must have been made by God". Or by robots or aliens, if you won't admit
>>> to your anti-science religion.
>>
>> I never said it couldn't happen by Darwinian mechanisms, or that life
>> must have been designed. You invent fake quotes because your real
>> motivation is to fling insults, and to show how much smarter you are
>> than me.
>>
>
>Right - so when you say "Darwinism is hand-waving. It's just another
>anti-faith faith", you weren't actually dismissing it?

It's possible but unlikely that our DNA life evolved that way. People
have done the math and it's intimidating. But without evidence, it is
hand-waving. So is Divine creation and panspermia and quantum
intelligence.

Our cells are "irreducibly complex." Everything has to work before
anything can work. There could be alternate explanations for life.

>
>I wish you would have the guts to stop pissing around, and admit that
>you have no regard for science or evidence, but find the world so
>confusing and beyond your personal comprehension that you think it was
>all made by some supernatural being just for you.

I design world-class electronics. I couldn't do that if I didn't use
science, evidence, experiment, and thinking.

You're a coder, right? That involves no science, no math, no evidence.
Certainly no expertise in biochemistry.

After all, if the
>great genius John Larkin can't understand it, clearly nobody can - so
>all these scientists are making stuff up, or just acting on faith.
>
>(Yes, I know I am paraphrasing.)

More like lying. Suggesting that things are possible denies nothing.

Design is the "possible" business.

>
>> What I have conjectured is that our life form might have evolved by
>> something other than RNA World followed by random mutation and
>> linear-descent selection.
>
>And again - every time you open your mouth you demonstrate how little
>you comprehend, and how little you even bother trying to read. If you
>had the faintest clue about the RNA World hypothesis, or had made even a
>rudimentary attempt at reading my posts, you'd know the RNA World
>hypothesis is not saying that it explains how life on earth came about.

OK, how did it come about?

> And you'd know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.
>
>>
>> I guess any other ideas, even speculations, are forbidden in your
>> world.
>>
>
>Informed, thoughtful and rational ideas are welcome - as speculative as
>you like. Pointless idiocy that has been corrected countless times
>already is not so interesting.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Have you ever looked at animations of the Mandelbrot set? It has
>>> amazing intricacies and patterns - details that change and repeat
>>> indefinitely. And yet it all comes from one very simple equation. Have
>>> you ever played the game "Go"? It has very simple pieces, a very simple
>>> board, very simple rules - and yet Go masters regularly learn tens of
>>> thousands of opening sequences before the real game even begins. Have
>>> you looked at a snowflake? Complex things develop by patterns and
>>> combinations of simple things - that is the nature of nature.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Those that /do/ appreciate the difference know that "God did it" is
>>>>> completely without any evidence or proof - and always will be (if there
>>>>> were evidence, it would be science). It is unfalsifiable, untestable,
>>>>> and is merely presented as an "unquestionable answer".
>>>>
>>>> That last sentence describes RNA World.
>>>
>>> The hypothesis is falsifiable - if evidence is discovered that shows RNA
>>> is not a sufficient basis for abiogenesis, we know the hypothesis is
>>> false. It is testable - we can do experiments with various combinations
>>> of starting chemicals and environments, and see if it produces active
>>> replicating RNA. (That's what the linked article was about.) It is
>>> questionable - that's what the scientists are doing all the time,
>>> questioning.
>>
>> So why won't you?
>>
>
>Why don't I do what? Question the hypothesis? Of course I do. I want
>to know what chemical soups they are starting with, and how they justify
>their choices. I want to know the environment and the basis for that.
>I want to know the results. I want to know if their experiments have
>been repeated, by the same group and others, and how the results vary.
>I want to know about alternative hypotheses - from the same group, and
>others. I want to know how well it all fits with the known evidence
>from the early earth.
>
>You are trying to create a straw man that the RNA World hypothesis is
>"science's unquestioned answer to how life on earth started", combined
>with completely unjustified claims of "the maths is against it". You
>think that means you can fill the gap with your "God did it"
>explanation. But actually it merely shows how little you know, and how
>little you care about how little you know.

I never said that God did anything, although it is a possibility.

It's reasonably probable that this world and even this universe were
designed. We might be a high school science project.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon