Self replicating and evolving RNA molecule created

It is interesting that some people so fiercely oppose the very idea of some chemical blob coming into existence spontaneously and yet at the same time they have no slightest doubt in the pre-existence of an infinitely more complex and capable entity. Some even believe its capabilities are literally unconstrained and somehow they know there is only one of this species. Logic wept.

Best regards, Piotr

On 26/03/2022 23:16, Anthony William Sloman wrote: <snip>

Look, you said Newton wasn't a scientist because the /word/ "scientist" did not exist at the time. If that's not what you meant, you should have said so when the ridiculousness of that claim was first pointed out. We all express ourselves badly on occasion.

That's the way you read it. If you had kept on reading, you would have got to

"Scientists want other people to exploit the work they have done. Newton probably invented calculus, but he called it the method of fluxions, and didn't teach it to anybody else.

That is a classical example of scientific behavior (though Leibniz wouldn't have called himself a scientist either)."

Because you only read the line you objected to, you didn't get to the more subtle point I was making. This is the sort of reaction Flyguy produces.

I think he was. Although he also had his disagreeable side as well.

Poor old Hooke got a lot less credit than he deserved. He did have the odd best seller to his name though. His Micrographia is stunning!

That is unduly cynical.

Most scientific discoveries are sufficiently robust to be celebrated well within the lifetime of their discoverer and usually with the award of a Nobel Prize.

A few stubborn refusniks refuse to accept the new theories but they quickly become irrelevant to the frontiers of science. Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory vs Martin Ryle's observations of radio galaxies being one such recent example. Huge egos and a very vicious fight!

Actually he did although we should all give thanks that the notation normally used is that due to Leibnitz and not Newtons.

f' and f" still survive to this day. It wasn't published until after his death but it was written in 1761. He kept it as a trade secret and back constructed opaque geometrical proofs using his results by fluxions.

Speak for yourself. Both notations are still in use even today. Leibnitz notatio is the common one but f' and f" still abound in physics texts.

They were all Natural Philosophers back then and/or Mathematicians and quite a few also dabbled in Alchemy (definitely not a science then).

Since you are replying to my post, I guess you are describing me. Entirely falsely.

You are being illogical, not me. I never declared any source of life to be of "no slightest doubt." I did suggest that various things might be possible, some interesting and some silly but none impossible. I guess designing electronics made me this way, always ready for surprises.

Given that nobody knows how life originated, declaring anything impossible actually needs proof.

People keep accusing me of being a religious fundamentalist because I dare to think about anything but primordial soup and random mutation.

Agressive atheism shuts off thinking more than attending church on Sunday.

Not sure if you, as you are doing your best to bring a lot of fog.

But these guys do not claim they know how life originated. They were merely able to demonstrate in the lab that their approach works. Whilst it may or may not have anything in common with the origin of terrestrial life, this is a very viable answer. The folks claiming otherwise, even from the very center of the mainstream science, have nothing even remotely resembling what the RNA guys have done. So the RNA hypothesis is just more credible, but not the only explanation.

I am fine with you being a religious fundamentalist, nobody's perfect. I just say that if you call gods (or aliens) to the rescue, you must explain the mechanism that created those gods (or aliens), not me. I don't buy "a diode couldn't have been spontaneously created, but if you assume the pre-existence of a supercomputer the size of the US that designed them, things start looking different" line of thinking. Show me the supercomputer and explain its origin.

Best regards, Piotr

Not all that incorrectly. Your self-image is shaped by your vanity,

You'd run into fewer of them if you could actually design your electronics.

Actually, the problem is that you read intelligent design propaganda, don't understand that it is propaganda, and recycle it as if were your own invention. You do the same with climate denial propaganda.

Neither has any necessary effect on peoples willingness to think. You don't seem to be able to think for yourself at all, so your ideas on the subject are entirely worthless.

SNIPPERMAN can't resist the impulse to take personal attacks, which is clearly a defect in his personality (assuming he has one). He will most likely do the same to my post.

Flyguy's enthusiasm for seeing defects in my personality saves him from making comments of any substance, which is clearly beyond him.

It's not easy to be critical of the defects in John Larkin's logic without being critical of John Larkin's enthusiasm for parading them. Flyguy has even less capacity for rational thought. I don't even have bother pointing out how stupid he is. He makes it obvious with every word he posts.

Daring? Hardly. You repeatedly insert worthless suggestions instead of workable theory or testable hypothesis.

That's not good science. Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce weren't doing good science, either.

"Maybe it's quantum", or "life was planted", are just word salad, no improvement over pastafarianism.

How do you know my suggestions are worthless? Are you an evolutionary biologist? They don't now how life started either.

And what problem do you have with worthless suggestions? You would poison a brainstorming session.

That's been explained to you many times by several people.

So, credentials in 'evolutionary biology' don't address a pertinent skill? What's the point, then, of the question?

Untrue; a brainstorming session, after all, ends with evaluation. The phase where rejection is discouraged is ONLY a phase, not the whole process. I've reached a few conclusions, and on most such occasions, I addressed the 'how to know' issue.

And most of them are lethal or neutral.

Best regards, Piotr

Claimed, not explained. Mostly insults.

Until you truly know the origin if life, mocking any possible source is emotion-driven and irrational.

Even improbable ideas have value. They punch through your blind spots. That has been explained to you many times.

If you think that, you need to polish your cognition skills.

It sounds like you are looking for reasons not to take the time and effort to understand.

The moon is made of green cheese. That improbable idea has value until you prove to me that it isn't? I think not.

Do you have such credentials?

Not always. Sometimes there is no obvious discovery, but maybe some people leave with different attitudes or unresolved hunches. That might inspire an idea years later.

Brainstorming exercizes mental flexibility... if you let it.

Invention is irrational. If you have a "phase" where ideas are rejected, you have elected to shut off the discovery process. Defining "phases" is inherently restrictive.

Turn on the big illuminated sign

STOP HAVING IDEAS NOW. [1]

There is the sunk-cost fallacy: we are so invested in a mediocre design that we can't cut over to better, simpler, quicker, cheaper one now.

Moon surface samples have been collected and analyzed. We know some about seismic propagation in the bulk of the moon. And we can measure tidal effects; green cheese would radically increase orbital decay. That is hard experimental data that works against the cheese theory.

We have zero experimental data that resolves the origin of DNA-based life, so options remain open.

The moon landings were faked.

The rocks were picked up on the earth. You can even find identical ones on the earth.