AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

[Walter]

No because Torridon was talking about self replicating molecules becoming extinct.
How does a class of self replicating molecules like DNA or RNA become extinct.

I think you are trading on the fact that nobody actually reads atheist posts critically as Walter so demonstrates....

Ah well, perhaps Torridon can explain himself instead of leaving you to ''polish his turds.''

Spoof
there are no atheist posts, there are atheist posters.
There are also idiot posters.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

No because Torridon was talking about self replicating molecules becoming extinct.
How does a class of self replicating molecules like DNA or RNA become extinct.

Oh dear.

[Walter]

Spoof,

Oh dear.

that's you best post by far, Blue just leave it at that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Walter,

that's you best post by far, Blue just leave it at that.

You're probably right - why someone would think that natural selection works for dodos but not for self-replicating molecules is anyone's guess, but there's none so blind and all that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Walter,

You're probably right - why someone would think that natural selection works for dodos but not for self-replicating molecules is anyone's guess, but there's none so blind and all that.

Yes we have stuffed Dodos and skeletal remains and fossils of Brontosaurus.....where is the evidence of an 'extinct' class of self replicating molecule as suggested by Torridon?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

DNA is the preeminent extant survivor of a process of evolution within the world of self replicating molecules in which a form of selection operated with increasingly complex long chain molecules proliferating at the expense of shorter chain ones with inferior information encoding ability.

Citations are necessary here...

So far there have only been shite-ations on this.

[Walter]

Citations are necessary here...

So far there have only been shite-ations on this.

Has this thread simply been a vehicle for you to make that 'joke'

[Sebastian Toe]

Has this thread simply been a vehicle for you to make that 'joke'

Most of the time when somebody says "that was a shite joke" the joke tellers would be a bit disappointed. But for one poster, that comment his one and only goal in life!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Most of the time when somebody says "that was a shite joke" the joke tellers would be a bit disappointed. But for one poster, that comment his one and only goal in life!

Do you mean me? My life's ambition is to be funnier than you Seb. My only disappointment is sharing that achievement with everybody else on the planet.

[Sebastian Toe]

Do you mean me? My life's ambition is to be funnier than you Seb. My only disappointment is sharing that achievement with everybody else on the planet.

What, no mention if excrement? You seem to have gone off piste Vlad!
Never one to disappoint though, just for you:

That was a shite joke.

[Enki]

It is interesting that the idea of 'blueprint' and 'dna' have been linked together in this discussion. Here is another take on this, which suggests that this metaphor is far too simplistic and should not be one to be taken too literally. Although I haven't read either of the two books mentioned, I find this article quite intriguing.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630251-000-dna-is-lifes-blueprint-no-theres-far-more-to-it-than-that/

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is interesting that the idea of 'blueprint' and 'dna' have been linked together in this discussion. Here is another take on this, which suggests that this metaphor is far too simplistic and should not be one to be taken too literally.

Yes....I blame science journalism and popular science.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes....I blame science journalism and popular science.

For SOTS's attempts to argue by metaphor?

[torridon]

DNA is the preeminent extant survivor of a process of evolution within the world of self replicating molecules in which a form of selection operated with increasingly complex long chain molecules proliferating at the expense of shorter chain ones with inferior information encoding ability.

How did that work? What is the evidence for this if chemicals by definition do not die as such...and if they don't die, how can chemicals become extinct.

I'm afraid without justification this just sounds like an ultradarwinian flight of fancy.

Darwinian evolution by natural selection is really an application of a broader principle to the particular field of biology; in the simpler world of organic chemistry the insatiable bonding appetite of carbon and oxygen in particular sees simpler short chain carbon compounds being absorbed over time into longer chain compounds of greater complexity. These precursor compounds leave no rock-bound fossils for us to study so it is harder for us to reconstruct the ancient pathways that led to the formation of DNA.  But DNA is so extraordinarily complex, a landmark in the evolution of complexity on this planet, that there is no way it could have just appeared spontaneously out of nowhere. Figuring out  those pathways is the stuff of abiogenesis.  One precursor compound, RNA, is still with us, and is involved in gene expression within every cell of your body, and some believe that before DNA there was an 'RNA World' supporting simpler forms of pre life but incapable of the range of function that comes with DNA. We have created self replicating RNA in the lab now, so this is not just science fiction. Here's an article on RNA

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26876/#A1133

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Darwinian evolution by natural selection is really an application of a broader principle to the particular field of biology; in the simpler world of organic chemistry the insatiable bonding appetite of carbon and oxygen in particular sees simpler short chain carbon compounds being absorbed over time into longer chain compounds of greater complexity. These precursor compounds leave no rock-bound fossils for us

So it is an unevidenced piece of ultradarwinism then insatiable bonding not equating to evolution in the Darwinian sense.

I notice we have ''created'' self replicating RNA. Irony aside has evolution of this been observed? or evolution INTO this molecule from precursor been observed.

[Enki]

Yes....I blame science journalism and popular science.

I'm inclined to agree with you. I would also suggest that those who jump to such conclusions  in order to further their own beliefs, without investigating more thoroughly,  are also to blame.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Torri,

Darwinian evolution by natural selection is really an application of a broader principle to the particular field of biology; in the simpler world of organic chemistry the insatiable bonding appetite of carbon and oxygen in particular sees simpler short chain carbon compounds being absorbed over time into longer chain compounds of greater complexity. These precursor compounds leave no rock-bound fossils for us to study so it is harder for us to reconstruct the ancient pathways that led to the formation of DNA.  But DNA is so extraordinarily complex, a landmark in the evolution of complexity on this planet, that there is no way it could have just appeared spontaneously out of nowhere. Figuring out  those pathways is the stuff of abiogenesis.  One precursor compound, RNA, is still with us, and is involved in gene expression within every cell of your body, and some believe that before DNA there was an 'RNA World' supporting simpler forms of pre life but incapable of the range of function that comes with DNA. We have created self replicating RNA in the lab now, so this is not just science fiction. Here's an article on RNA

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26876/#A1133

Yup indeed. Worth pointing out that chromosome counts give a big clue to the evolution of DNA too. We have 46 (23 pairs), earthworms 36, goldfish 104. Some species of fern on the other hand have 1,200. Does that mean the goldfish and ferns are in some way more "sophisticated" species than Homo sapiens?

Nope - it just means that they've been around longer so their DNA has had more opportunities to mutate, just as you'd expect in fact with an evolutionary process subject to natural selection.

Funny that.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Torri,

Yup indeed. Worth pointing out that chromosome counts give a big clue to the evolution of DNA too. We have 46 (23 pairs), earthworms 36, goldfish 104. Some species of fern on the other hand have 1,200. Does that mean the goldfish and ferns are in some way more "sophisticated" species than Homo sapiens?

Nope - it just means that they've been around longer so their DNA has had more opportunities to mutate, just as you'd expect in fact with an evolutionary process subject to natural selection.

Funny that.

Non sequitur since the article concerns the evolution of self replicating RNA.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm inclined to agree with you. I would also suggest that those who jump to such conclusions  in order to further their own beliefs, without investigating more thoroughly,  are also to blame.

Yes and there is the dangerous allure of ''elegance.''

[Enki]

Yes and there is the dangerous allure of ''elegance.''

Indeed.

“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.”
― Richard Feynman

[Walter]

Indeed.

“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.”
― Richard Feynman

he certainly was a fine man

[jeremyp]

Nope - it just means that they've been around longer so their DNA has had more opportunities to mutate, just as you'd expect in fact with an evolutionary process subject to natural selection.

I'm afraid that doesn't follow at all. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Most other apes have 24. That tells us that our ancestors had more chromosomes than us and that two pairs fused together.

[Hope]

Indeed.

“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.”
― Richard Feynman

Unfortunately for Feynman, there have been enough occasions when breakthroughs have occurred only after something has 'disagreed with experiment' to make this more of a platitude than a scientific truth.

[jeremyp]

Unfortunately for Feynman, there have been enough occasions when breakthroughs have occurred only after something has 'disagreed with experiment' to make this more of a platitude than a scientific truth.

You're talking bollocks.

[Walter]

Unfortunately for Feynman, there have been enough occasions when breakthroughs have occurred only after something has 'disagreed with experiment' to make this more of a platitude than a scientific truth.

eh!

tell me more....