‘Monumental’ experiment suggests how life on Earth may have started

[BCP1928]

Engineered, developed, designed...I say tomato you say tomato.

Here is your chance for a teleological argument.

 

[SelfSim]

.. there are quite detailed hypotheses being developed which leverage the clarity of Evolution's explanatory power, however.

For those actually interested in evolutionary explanations of the possible origins of RNA Polymerase, here's one such 2017 paper:

Origin and Evolution of RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase

RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRp) are very ancient enzymes and are essential for all viruses with RNA genomes. We reconstruct the origin and evolution of this polymerase since the initial stages of the origin of life.

From the abstract:

Our results suggest that RdRp originated from junctions of proto-tRNAs that worked as the first genes at the emergence of the primitive translation system, where the RNA was the informational molecule. The initial domain, worked as a building block for the emergence of the fingers and thumb domains. From the ancestral RdRp, we could establish the evolutionary stages of viral evolution from a rooted ancestor to modern viruses. It was observed that the selective pressure under the RdRp was the organization and functioning of the genome, where RNA double-stranded and RNA single-stranded virus formed a separate group. We propose an evolutionary route to the polymerases and the results suggest an ancient scenario for the origin of RNA viruses.

 

[Chesterton]

I provided the factual context in my post #6, (which was completely ignored). It was also preceded by a similar point being made by @sfs in post#5, (which was also completely ignored).

Have you been drinking, my good man? I replied to both of those posts, neither were "completely ignored". As to the rest of your post about factual context, you sound more like an evasive politician than a scientist.

 

[Chesterton]

Here is your chance for a teleological argument.

The OP says some intelligent beings developed something in test tubes. I presume they did that intentionally with some purpose. I don't see how any argument is needed.

 

[BCP1928]

The OP says some intelligent beings developed something in test tubes. I presume they did that intentionally with some purpose. I don't see how any argument is needed.

The general form of the argument is that a similar process in nature could not have occurred without similar intelligent intervention.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Ahh .. the folly of looking up dictionary definitions (or Googling) of terms, then solely relying on them entirely, as a point of argument by in diverting discussion from the core issue (and the significance of the research highlighted in the OP).

The meanings of words is context dependent .. and when dealing with unknowns, arguing about standard word meanings as the sole basis, is a complete waste of time, (and was not the actual point I was making).

I provided the factual context in my post #6, (which was completely ignored). It was also preceded by a similar point being made by @sfs in post#5, (which was also completely ignored).

.. there are quite detailed hypotheses being developed which leverage the clarity of Evolution's explanatory power, however.

What's yours?

Why did you exclude the first portion of your post? You said they engineered it.

They engineered it

You said this in opposition to the statement made that they designed it which means the same thing. So you were saying they didn’t design it they engineered it which doesn’t make any sense since both words used in the context mean the exact same thing. So what you’re actually doing is trying to refute the argument that it took intelligent intervention to accomplish their objective by playing word games. How do you “engineer” something without designing it and vice versa? Anything you qualify as “engineering” can also just as easily be qualified as “designing”.

 

[BCP1928]

Why did you exclude the first portion of your post? You said they engineered it.


You said this in opposition to the statement made that they designed it which means the same thing. So you were saying they didn’t design it they engineered it which doesn’t make any sense since both words used in the context mean the exact same thing. So what you’re actually doing is trying to refute the argument that it took intelligent intervention to accomplish their objective by playing word games. How do you “engineer” something without designing it and vice versa? Anything you qualify as “engineering” can also just as easily be qualified as “designing”.

The difficulty here is that "design" can be understood in two different senses. It can refer to the shape or structure of an object ("show me the design of the new autogyro") but it can also signal intention ("Here comes selfsim with a fork; I'll bet he has designs on that piece of pie")

 

[Chesterton]

The general form of the argument is that a similar process in nature could not have occurred without similar intelligent intervention.

I would agree with that.

 

[BCP1928]

I would agree with that.

Why? What good would it do you?

 

[Chesterton]

Why? What good would it do you?

I don't understand the question.

 

[BCP1928]

I don't understand the question.

Why would you agree with the teleological argument?

 

[Chesterton]

Because it makes sense. It conforms with what we know. You don't get something from nothing, and you don't get orderly systems from chaos, and you won't get elephants from hydrogen atoms unless something is going on behind the scenes.

 

[Estrid]

Because it makes sense. It conforms with what we know. You don't get something from nothing, and you don't get orderly systems from chaos, and you won't get elephants from hydrogen atoms unless something is going on behind the scenes.

" don't get order from chaos" so easily shown to be false
that we have to wonder why you'd say it.

 

[SelfSim]

You said this in opposition to the statement made that they designed it which means the same thing. So you were saying they didn’t design it they engineered it which doesn’t make any sense since both words used in the context mean the exact same thing. So what you’re actually doing is trying to refute the argument that it took intelligent intervention to accomplish their objective by playing word games. How do you “engineer” something without designing it and vice versa? Anything you qualify as “engineering” can also just as easily be qualified as “designing”.

In engineering there has to be objective evidence of the existence of a design in order for the engineering process to proceed.
There is also objective evidence of an experimental design and an hypothesis in the OP study.
There is no objective evidence of a design for a naturally occuring RNA molecule.

This is why I said it was engineered and not designed.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Because it makes sense. It conforms with what we know.

It's not clear what you are replying to so your pronouns are confusing.

You don't get something from nothing,

Probably not, but then there was probably never a "nothing" from which "something" came.

and you don't get orderly systems from chaos,

All the time. We could start with crystalization and then move on to any number of self-organizing systems in nature.

and you won't get elephants from hydrogen atoms unless something is going on behind the scenes.

A lot of things, actually, but we know about so many of them.

1. Gravity pulls clumps of hydrogen and helium (you can't get hydrogen without helium) into stars.
2. The stars have high temperatures and densities in their cores and cause nuclear reactions forming heavier elements.
3. The stars explode releasing the heavier elements into space.
4. New stars form with the heavy elements mixed in when those clouds collapse due to gravity.
5. Planets form around the new stars made from the heavy elements created in the exploded stars.
6. Carbon atoms on the surface of the planet form a variety of chemicals including all of the sub-components for all of the needed biomolecules for life.

Nothing above is in anyway scientifically controversial.

 

[Estrid]

" don't get order from chaos" so easily shown to be false
that we have to wonder why you'd say it.

I guess I won't be finding out.

 

[Larniavc]

Has the independent emergence of an RNA polymerase ribozyme been demonstrated?

Only by directed selection and some other catalyst. As far as I know.

 

[SelfSim]

Has the independent emergence of an RNA polymerase ribozyme been demonstrated?

Only by directed selection and some other catalyst. As far as I know.

Fyi: With the addition of the update provided in the OP, the following appears to be a fairly up-to-date summary of the status, (at least as at the 2021 publication date, including supporting reference materials).

From: Witnessing the structural evolution of an RNA enzyme, (eLife, 2021 article):

An RNA enzyme that catalyzes the RNA templated copying of RNA could, in principle, generate additional copies of itself and thus serve as the basis for self-sustained Darwinian evolution. No such enzyme currently exists, although diligent efforts by several laboratories have used directed evolution to isolate an RNA ligase ribozyme from a population of random-sequence RNAs (Bartel and Szostak, 1993; Ekland et al., 1995), then drive the ribozyme to function as an ever more efficient RNA polymerase (Johnston et al., 2001; Zaher and Unrau, 2007; Wochner et al., 2011; Horning and Joyce, 2016; Cojocaru and Unrau, 2021), now with the ability to synthesize RNAs as complex as the parental ligase (Attwater et al., 2018; Tjhung et al., 2020).

 

[NxNW]

You don't get something from nothing

Nobody is claiming otherwise.

and you don't get orderly systems from chaos

Actually, you do. If you pass energy through matter under certain circumstances, the matter organizes itself.

and you won't get elephants from hydrogen atoms unless something is going on behind the scenes.

It takes additional types of atoms (formed in a supernova) and a considerably long time.