To be honest,   This result is interesting, but for the purpose of driving any spike into rhetorical creationist arguments,   this does not quite hit any intellectually honest mark.

The reason is it only demonstrate that a system of self-replicating RNA is plausible.  There have already been strong theoretical reason to suppose it was possible for a long time before it was demonstrated.    But despite the long standing expectation that such an RNA world can be shown to be possible, there is by no means any consensus that such an RNA world was indeed an actual, much less necessary, step in the process of abiogenesis.

(March 18, 2022 at 4:15 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Creationists aside, this is groundbreaking. Abiogenesis remains one of the great mysteries.

Aside from that, the fossil record refutes creationism. Abiogenesis never really was needed to win that argument.

 "Abiogenesis never really was needed to win that argument".

That's because after infinity was transversed, energy and matter decided to combine and the first thing that was decided was they would develop a brain so they could think. Okay, let’s go with that thought.

(March 19, 2022 at 10:20 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(March 18, 2022 at 4:15 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Creationists aside, this is groundbreaking. Abiogenesis remains one of the great mysteries.

Aside from that, the fossil record refutes creationism. Abiogenesis never really was needed to win that argument.

 "Abiogenesis never really was needed to win that argument".

That's because after infinity was transversed, energy and matter decided to combine and the first thing that was decided was they would develop a brain so they could think. Okay, let’s go with that thought.

You are living proof that developing a brain so they could think is not only not the first thing that the energy and matter which combined to form you decided to do, these didn’t even make the cut as the last thing they would decide to do.

Quote: "Abiogenesis never really was needed to win that argument".

That's because after infinity was transversed, energy and matter decided to combine and the first thing that was decided was they would develop a brain so they could think. Okay, let’s go with that thought.

Behold the most ignorant statement in this thread 

(March 19, 2022 at 10:20 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(March 18, 2022 at 4:15 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Creationists aside, this is groundbreaking. Abiogenesis remains one of the great mysteries.

Aside from that, the fossil record refutes creationism. Abiogenesis never really was needed to win that argument.

 "Abiogenesis never really was needed to win that argument".

That's because after infinity was transversed, energy and matter decided to combine and the first thing that was decided was they would develop a brain so they could think. Okay, let’s go with that thought.

I WISH that creationism was so developed a theory that you had to demonstrate brain formation to refute it. Sadly, no.

All you gotta do is prove that the universe is more than 6,000 years old. Creationism is a horrible, horrible theory. Proven false independently in the fields of geology, biology, and astronomy.

It's kind of like someone having a theory that marshmallows are not affected by gravity. You don't have to have in-depth knowledge of how gravity works or how marshmallows are made to prove the theory false. All you gotta do is drop a marshmallow on the floor.

(March 19, 2022 at 10:20 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(March 18, 2022 at 4:15 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Creationists aside, this is groundbreaking. Abiogenesis remains one of the great mysteries.

Aside from that, the fossil record refutes creationism. Abiogenesis never really was needed to win that argument.

 "Abiogenesis never really was needed to win that argument".

That's because after infinity was transversed, energy and matter decided to combine and the first thing that was decided was they would develop a brain so they could think. Okay, let’s go with that thought.

True story FSM spoke to me recently and told me Xhe has actually transversed infinity several times attempting to find you a suitable working brain. No such luck yet.

(March 20, 2022 at 12:14 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(March 19, 2022 at 10:20 pm)snowtracks Wrote:  "Abiogenesis never really was needed to win that argument".

That's because after infinity was transversed, energy and matter decided to combine and the first thing that was decided was they would develop a brain so they could think. Okay, let’s go with that thought.

I WISH that creationism was so developed a theory that you had to demonstrate brain formation to refute it. Sadly, no.

All you gotta do is prove that the universe is more than 6,000 years old. Creationism is a horrible, horrible theory. Proven false independently in the fields of geology, biology, and astronomy.

It's kind of like someone having a theory that marshmallows are not affected by gravity. You don't have to have in-depth knowledge of how gravity works or how marshmallows are made to prove the theory false. All you gotta do is drop a marshmallow on the floor.

Funny enough flat-earthers insist that doesn't prove gravity

(March 20, 2022 at 12:14 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(March 19, 2022 at 10:20 pm)snowtracks Wrote:  "Abiogenesis never really was needed to win that argument".

That's because after infinity was transversed, energy and matter decided to combine and the first thing that was decided was they would develop a brain so they could think. Okay, let’s go with that thought.

I WISH that creationism was so developed a theory that you had to demonstrate brain formation to refute it. Sadly, no.

All you gotta do is prove that the universe is more than 6,000 years old. Creationism is a horrible, horrible theory. Proven false independently in the fields of geology, biology, and astronomy.

It's kind of like someone having a theory that marshmallows are not affected by gravity. You don't have to have in-depth knowledge of how gravity works or how marshmallows are made to prove the theory false. All you gotta do is drop a marshmallow on the floor.

Creationism is as far from theory as any proposition can be.

A theory must reflect the intellectual capacity to know what would constitute its defeat, coupled with the intellectual honesty to tell its challengers what would constitute its defeat. 

missing one and it no longer qualify as a theory.   Missing both and it is acquires the sort of intellectual worthlessness that characterizes “faith”

(March 19, 2022 at 10:20 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(March 18, 2022 at 4:15 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Creationists aside, this is groundbreaking. Abiogenesis remains one of the great mysteries.

Aside from that, the fossil record refutes creationism. Abiogenesis never really was needed to win that argument.

 "Abiogenesis never really was needed to win that argument".

That's because after infinity was transversed, energy and matter decided to combine and the first thing that was decided was they would develop a brain so they could think. Okay, let’s go with that thought.

Hello.

Uhm... when and what 'Infinity' was 'Transversed' (Did you mean 'Traversed' also/perhaps?)

Researchers sing the great Hadron collider and other such machines have shown that, kind of litterally, from enough energy subatomic aprticles actually 'emerge' or 'coalesce'. Other than using honking big atom 'smashing' machines matter emerges quite naturally from higher states of energy.  

Once you've got atoms... then you seem to get chemsitry. Y'know, what water does under different preasures and temperatures? What other elements do as conditioins change etc.

With enough chemistry.. you get molecules forming that 'We' (Science type people) classify as 'Organic'. Thence you get organic chemistry happening. From which is ont much of a streatch for long chains of organic polymers to thence keep on doing their things.

Such as 'Pryons' forming in the wild and replicating. Y'know, those dangerous little molecular bits that can EAT YOUR BRAIN? (Well... cows, thence to humans etc).

So... if organic molecules can happily form that destroy brains, then it's not much of a stretch for molecules to get together for mutual protection and eventually work 'Up' to 'Life'.  

Cheers.

Not at work.

(March 19, 2022 at 1:31 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: To be honest,   This result is interesting, but for the purpose of driving any spike into rhetorical creationist arguments,   this does not quite hit any intellectually honest mark.

The reason is it only demonstrate that a system of self-replicating RNA is plausible.  There have already been strong theoretical reason to suppose it was possible for a long time before it was demonstrated.    But despite the long standing expectation that such an RNA world can be shown to be possible, there is by no means any consensus that such an RNA world was indeed an actual, much less necessary, step in the process of abiogenesis.

It certainly refutes many creationists’ assertion that self-replicating molecules cannot arise naturally.