Lab RNA molecule that replicates, diversifies, and develops complexity

[LadyForCamus]

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.

Give me one reason why I should go with that thought.

[Anomalocaris]

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.

That’s already been refuted well before self replicating RNA’s. Self-replicating proteins have been known for years.

[LadyForCamus]

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

That’s already been refuted well before self replicating RNA’s. Self-replicating proteins have been known for years.

Yes. Now ask a creationist where they came from.

[Anomalocaris]

That’s already been refuted well before self replicating RNA’s. Self-replicating proteins have been known for years.

Yes. Now ask a creationist where they came from.

They came from having their entire self-worth totally vested in a bag of ancient lies that, thousands of years ago when these was first contrived, seemed very cunningly and impenetrably contrived. 

They have a pressing need to feel their ignorances can still give them a self perception of power in the world today, a world which since thousands of years ago has learned how to learn.   That need can only be met by pretending to themselves that if the lies seemed impenetrable to second rate talents thousands of years ago, when the world didn’t know how to learn, then it must still be actually impenetrable to first rate talents today, in a world that actually has known how to learn for centuries.

[snowtracks]

 "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.

Give me one reason why I should go with that thought.

Thinking came after brain development, not before.

[LadyForCamus]

Give me one reason why I should go with that thought.

Thinking came after brain development, not before.

As evidenced by…?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Thinking came after brain development, not before.

How many times were dropped on your head ?

[Paleophyte]

Give me one reason why I should go with that thought.

Thinking came after brain development, not before.

So god is incapable of thought?

Sorry, were you doing logic, humour or irony? It's so hard to tell with you.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Give me one reason why I should go with that thought.

Thinking came after brain development, not before.

'Thinking came before thought' ?

That's a bold claim there Lou. Care to back it up?

[Jehanne]

It would seem that Professor Antony Flew jumped ship too soon. Why am I not surprised by this? (Hint: Even more amazing discoveries to be made in the next 10 years.)