Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Originally posted by randman "Means it has chemical properties that cause it to catalyze the formation of another one approximately like it."
OK, Jerry, then we have self-replicating molecules happening all the time. The article then states quite forcefully.
"Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators."
Please show where natural selection works among rocks. I mean it clearly states that once a molecule forms, "natural selection WILL GUIDE THE FORMATION OF EVER MORE EFFECIENT REPLICATORS."
Have we ever seen chemical properties evolve efficient chemical properties? Personally, I can't believe you don't see this. Do I have to spell it out to you?
Rocks form. They are thus self-replicating. They don't develop more efficient means of self-replicating. The properties of such chemicals are fixed. They are not subject to natural selection. They are not alive.
Think about it.
In case you have forgotten the very quote you are criticizing, it says that COMPLEX MOLECULES SPONTANEOUSLY FORM (not self-replicators)
It says that ONCE A SELF-REPLICATOR DOES FORM, natural selection guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators.
Bull, all chemicals can be self-replicatin under the definitions you guys have come up with, but their properties are fixed. They don't evolve new properties.
That's the whole thing. The article is claiming because molecules can from into more complex molecules, and this is how rocks form isn't it, that this mechanism is sufficient to form life, but for that to happen the intrinsinc qualities of chemicals must evolve, and they cannot. Those aspects of matter are fixed.
Originally posted by randman Bull, all chemicals can be self-replicatin under the definitions you guys have come up with, but their properties are fixed. They don't evolve new properties.
That's the whole thing. The article is claiming because molecules can from into more complex molecules, and this is how rocks form isn't it, that this mechanism is sufficient to form life, but for that to happen the intrinsinc qualities of chemicals must evolve, and they cannot. Those aspects of matter are fixed.
Ok, please use your VAST knowledge of organic chemistry to demonstrate that the "properties" (I assume you mean the chemical structure) of an organically self-replicated molecule must be identical to its parent molecule.
Bull, all chemicals can be self-replicatin under the definitions you guys have come up with,
Wrong. Most chemicals aren't. Self-replicating molecules make copies of themselves. Most compounds don't do this.
but their properties are fixed. They don't evolve new properties.
Who says they did? Each self-replicating molecule had fixed chemical properties. But imperfect replication would obviously yield different molecules, with obviously different properties.
That's the whole thing. The article is claiming because molecules can from into more complex molecules, and this is how rocks form isn't it,
No. Not even close. Not even remotely. This, in fact, would be an excellent description of how rocks aren't formed.
Rocks form one of three ways. Can you remember them from school?
Rocks do not take raw materials and make copies of themselves.
that this mechanism is sufficient to form life, but for that to happen the intrinsinc qualities of chemicals must evolve, and they cannot.
No they don't. All it takes is imperfect replication. Different self-replicating molecules replicating in different fashions. Some more efficient, some less. Different molecules, different properties.
"In case you have forgotten the very quote you are criticizing, it says that COMPLEX MOLECULES SPONTANEOUSLY FORM (not self-replicators)
It says that ONCE A SELF-REPLICATOR DOES FORM, natural selection guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators."
Anyway you read it, it is deceptive. Why do they state complex molecules spontaneously form, and the very next line state "Once a self-replicator does form." That's bogus. First, it could mean that molecules are self-replicating since they form into more complex molecules, and thus are stating it happens easily, that we observe it happening, that molecules form more complex molecules and go on and then once they form (the inference being that they do this all the time), they are then subject to natural selection and the rest is history. They could mean that.
Or, they could be not including a huge gap between complex molecules and self-replicating forms, but since self-replicating is approximate, it could just about mean anything.
Either way, the intention is clear. The fact complex molecules spontaneously form is given as evidence for life spontaneously forming, and given in such a way that it is an inevitable product, despite the fact that no complex molecules, carbon or otherwise, has ever behaved this way.
I think they give their readers credit for a hint of intelligence and ability to read English. Maybe they shouldn't.
Did you even read the Abiogenesis FAQ or are you going to continue to nitpick a three paragraph side note about it that mentions the fact that abiogenesis is irrelevant to evolution?
__________________ Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.
Either way, the intention is clear. The fact complex molecules spontaneously form is given as evidence for life spontaneously forming, and given in such a way that it is an inevitable product, despite the fact that no complex molecules, carbon or otherwise, has ever behaved this way.
This is malarkey. The EXTREMELY CLEAR, STATED INTENTION is to refute ill-informed claims that abiogenesis is impossible, or depends on "probability" (chance) and is too improbable.
__________________ Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.
English is your second language, isn't it? Do you need the "See Spot Run" version?
Anyway you read it, it is deceptive. Why do they state complex molecules spontaneously form, and the very next line state "Once a self-replicator does form."
It seems quite straightforward. They explain how a complex molecule like a self-replicator could form (lots of complex molecules, especially carbon ones, form sponteanously under a wide range of conditions).
Then they say it begins to replicate, because that's what a self-replicating molecules does.
How is this confusing?
That's bogus. First, it could mean that molecules are self-replicating since they form into more complex molecules,
That's not what self-replication means, Randman. Yeah, sure, it could mean that. If you change the word "Red" to mean "Black" then you get Red and White Zebras.
It means what it says. Complex molecules form. Once one forms that can self-replicate, it does.
and thus are stating it happens easily,
Nope. If they said "Self-replicating molecules replicated", you'd be screaming "where do self-replicating molecules come from".
Why are you whining that they started from the beginning? Simple biochemistry?
that we observe it happening, that molecules form more complex molecules and go on and then once they form (the inference being that they do this all the time), they are then subject to natural selection and the rest is history. They could mean that.
They could mean that. If you redefined half the words in the English language.
However, this is about the accuracy of the FAQ, not whether it's written for poor readers.
Or, they could be not including a huge gap between complex molecules and self-replicating forms, but since self-replicating is approximate, it could just about mean anything.
COuld be. Thankfully, in the Abiogensis FAQ they link to, they talk about how Abiogensis is a new field where much research is just now being done and much is unknown.
I don't think they're hiding "holes" since they freely admit the tentative nature of abiogenesis research.
Either way, the intention is clear. The fact complex molecules spontaneously form is given as evidence for life spontaneously forming,
No. It's given as evidence that complex molecules form.
and given in such a way that it is an inevitable product, despite the fact that no complex molecules, carbon or otherwise, has ever behaved this way.
You mean, other than it behaving that way for chemists?
Are you seriously claiming that self-replicating molecules don't exist?
Maybe an analogy would help. If I state in showing how one can go from A to B. First take Main Street south, and "once" you hit...
The "once" there implies inevitability. So Talkorigins is stating the fact molecules form into more complex molecules shows that they will form into self-replicating forms. Remember that this FAQ is directed to the public as an introductory piece to explain in layman's terms how criticism of evolution and here abiogenesis is unfounded.
OK, then Talkorigins states that "Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators." The implication is once again inevitability. Why? Because natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators.
But is this true? Would natural selection work in this way? What is competing against the self-replicator? The answer is other non-living matter.
The answer is clearly no. The competition for resources as someone stated would actually just "kill" or actually "change" the self-replicating chemical into a part of something non-self-replicating, not strengthen it.
To state that natural selection would make it ever more efficient is just something we have never seen in terms of physical matter.
The answer is clearly no. The competition for resources as someone stated would actually just "kill" or actually "change" the self-replicating chemical into a part of something non-self-replicating, not strengthen it.
You propagandist!!! You've never seen this so-called "killing" or changing into non-self-repicating, in terms of physical matter! You are propagandizing!
The point of the above is that you get a little bit of allowance for talking about what the possibilities are when you are refuting a simplistic claim than when you are explaining the details of Abiogenesis (as in they do in the Abiogenesis FAQ).
Linear Mode
