Do you have data on that? The decomposition temperature of RNA is no doubt well established, the fact that temperatures like this are discussed suggest that it's higher than this. The fact that DNA is denatured to RNA like strands (which then survive) also suggests greater RNA durability than DNA.
Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry
RNA is too complicated to have arisen prebiotically, it’s inherently unstable, catalysis is rare or at least severely limited. Add to that the high PH of the primordial oceans at a temperature of at least 180 degrees.
You haven't shown that. You've only asserted it without evidence. The fact that these many chemical routes are discussed suggests that the RNA is not destroyed.
Oh I think what has been presented is more then clear:
The previous discussion has tried mightily to present the most optimistic view possible for the emergence of an RNA replicase ribozyme from a soup of random-sequence polynucleotides. It must be admitted, however, that this model does not appear to be very plausible. The discussion has focused on a straw man: The myth of a small RNA molecule that arises de novo and can replicate efficiently and with high fidelity under plausible prebiotic conditions. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of current understanding of prebiotic chemistry (The Origins of the RNA World. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2012)
Thus ribosomal ribinucliec acid. The ribosome isn't a relic it's a complex molecular mechanism:
Ribosomal ribonucleic acid (rRNA) is the RNA component of the ribosome, and is essential for protein synthesis in all living organisms. It constitutes the predominant material within the ribosome, which is approximately 60% rRNA and 40% protein by weight. (Ribosomal RNA - Wikipedia)
You still don't have a viable path for RNA, let along proteins, let alone a sophisticated combination of RNA and proteins.
Secondly - yes, self replication is indeed all that is initially needed - because once you have that, natural selection will select the better replicators, and over time that can build up greater functionality.
As Darwin said of his warm little pond speculations, oh but what an if:
The RNA World scenario is bad as a scientific hypothesis: it is hardly falsifiable and is extremely difficult to verify due to a great number of holes in the most important parts. To wit, no one has achieved bona fide self-replication of RNA which is the cornerstone of the RNA World. (The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life except for all the others. Biodirect, 2012)
Yes, mark, you do need to be an expert to understand this. That's why there are experts who research this stuff. The Dunning-Kruger effect makes it seem to some of us that one can talk out of ignorance, but the bottom line is that doing is like one of us saying that quantum mechanics is all wrong and can't be true to those who use it every day and actually understand it.
I don't spend a lot of time on their math or their methods, I'm certainly not interested in non-euclidean subatomic physics. My favorite example is that we are walking through the park one afternoon and decide to have lunch. We stop off at the bakery and buy fresh baked bread and eclairs. Now we may need a baker to make them but certainly don't have to be bakers to eat them.
There are advantages to being a layman, I'm surprised you haven't caught on to this yet.
But in 1987, some Japanese scientists were looking for something in DNA, and they saw this weird group of nucleotides, pieces of DNA. They had no idea what they were doing and what they meant and what their function was. And in a piece they published in The Journal of Bacteriology, the last sentence literally was, and we saw this weird, crazy group of nucleotides, and we have no idea what they're doing there. And that was that. And that was not for a very long time. (
New Gene-Editing Techniques Hold the Promise Of Altering The Fundamentals Of Life)
I strongly suggest you listen to this because it's a ridiculously simple gene with some very powerful capabilities if you hear the rest of the story. Maybe we can't understand a lot of the details but there are a lot of things that can be understood by a layman and one advantage we have, we can jump ahead in the chain.
I've never seen anyone here who actually holds the "presuppositional logic of Darwinian evolution". You simply made that up, and label people (including Christians) who use actual evidence with that term. You've never argued against someone who holds that on these fora - you've only done so in your own mind.
That's simply not true, it's the essence of Darwinian logic. It is universal in it's scope and categorical in it's rejection of divine causation and transcends all natural history and natural phenomenon. Thus a presuppositional logic.
Of course I did - and the rest of the paper goes on to work on these problems. This is similar to the often quote-mined Darwin eye quote. You know the one I mean, right?
Of course I remember it, it's the null hypothesis for Darwinian natural selection.
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
It doesn't even have to be an organ as far as I'm concerned, it could be a cellular organelle.
That's great! Though it does seem at odds with your repeated evolution denial across these fora, especially when it comes to human evolution.
I've spent a lot of time on that and remain unconvinced.
Cool. I've found this to be a fun source of learning about abiogenesis. I listened to it on my commute.
Origins of Life
I'll check it out when I get a chance.
mark, that doesn't make sense. Millions of scientists are Christians. There is no need to be a philosphical naturalist to be a scientist. You can fully accept gravitational theory, and be a Christian who believes in a supernatural God. You can fully accept germ theory, and be a Christian who believes in a supernatural God. You can fully accept evolution, and be a Christian who believes in a supernatural God. You can fully accept atomic theory, and be a Christian who believes in a supernatural God.
It's not the contrary nature of the theory, it's the consummate nature of creation at the point of origin. In the Gospels is the promise of eternal life inextricably linked to the resurrection and the incarnation. I'm not all that concerned about physics, my primary interest is the creation of life and how it relates to the New Testament.
A lot of us find it quite odd that you understand that for so many of these, and still apparently get hung up on the fact of evolution.
Evolution isn't the issue, it's a natural phenomenon not opposed to a miraculous creation 6000 years ago. Evolution can start there and still be unaffected as a naturally occurring phenomenon. The animosity toward anyone suggesting a literal creation week seems excessive since there are millions of Christians who still hold to it. Life comes from life in every living system known to man, the back up problem is the primary source, the unmoved mover. God will always be at the point of origin.
Except that they are not "unbending on their categorical rejection of God or miracles across the board". That's simply an alternative fact. Millions of Christians are scientists, including millions who are biologists and fully accept the reality of evolution - including human evolution. You've made up a paranoid delusion in your mind that so many of our sisters and brothers in Christ are atheists, when they aren't.
I'm not paranoid, I'm actually willing to vet any naturalistic explanation they may choose to dream up. I'm just not going to categorically reject miraculous causation because I've seen first hand what this does to theology.
How would you respond if I were to reject the findings of obstetrics, and claim that babies are poofed into existence, fully formed, an hour before birth, and if anyone disagreed with me, I stated that "I simply reserve the right to remain unconvinced."?
I didn't say God was creating life by divine fiat as a general rule except with regards to original creation. From there procreation, while still well within the purview of divine providence, can remain naturalistic given some exceptions.
Does the standard understanding of the process of pregnancy exclude the fact that God is forming the baby? I personally don't think so. Do you? Do you exclude God from that process?
No I don't exclude God from anything he might decide to involve himself with, however, there's little reason to jump to conclusions. I know God still does miracles but what I get from the Exodus and Jesus and the feeding of the 5,000 is that humans react to miracles the same way they react to everything God does. The believers continue in faith while others turn in their hearts back to Egypt.
Grace and peace,
Mark
