Quote (TiStuff @ 9 Mar 2023 01:29)
life (living systems) are the most complex and interdependent systems known to man light years ahead of anything man has ever made.
(interdependent means all systems have to me in place at the same time or the system crashes. we are talking about the 'simple cell here)
maybe most importantly its an information system. DNA is a language. A four bit? (quaternary) language that builds a specific body plan.
And nobody has the foggiest idea how the most complex language known to man comes out of some kind of random process.
even after it gets started if given aboigenesis for free (chemical evolution). for evolution "macro" it is necessary for that random process to produce viable information changes.
for this to work the solution offered is deep time. remember the scientific process observable testable repeatable ? is deep time even 'scientific?
the sweetheart of abiogenesis "was" the RNA world hypothesis but that paper has been retracted.
if a person doenst/cant believe this stuff is the product of some kind of random accidental process could you really blame them?
DNA could store all of the world's data in one room
[URL]https://www.science.org/content/article/dna-could-store-all-worlds-data-one-room[/URL]
There is much about the "standard model" that I don't agree with. Some is because it is far-fetched and some that is too complex for me to grasp. However, the model lays the groundwork for biology because all living things comprise of non-living building blocks.
Physicists and engineers like to extrapolate data about the past from things we can investigate now. A example of this is calculating what happened 1 second after the big bang from Hubble Space Telescope images. Now while there is compelling evidence (mathematics) to show what was likely to be the case, the truth remains: it is impossible to know for sure. Even if we could wind back time, there is no guarantee the laws of physics themselves did not change because if they did, our references to measure against are by definition useless. Because of this, I am careful on which theories I endorse and which of those I do not because I could easily be wrong by virtue of a simple miscalculation or believing in an illusion altogether.
Which brings me to information and the RNA world hypothesis. To begin, all things that exist carry information. This information is encoded in some way that may or may not be apparent to use. Language is of course movements of the mouth that cause vibrations. Our brains translate this into meaningful information we call language. But by no means is this effect unique. I realize you don't follow evolution but interesting data shows that many species developed their own ways to communicate, even plants! There is often the idea that Nature is random but I don't think that is the case. Rather, Nature "selects" for traits that will help the organism or its offspring. Almost every aspect our biology (and medicine) can be explained by tracing our evolution through time, that is, the very small and slow changes that gave rise to me typing this message. As for the RNA hypothesis, I am skeptical on that because it does not account for the encoding of non-living information already present at that time. A crystal of table salt is highly organized and carries information encoded as a 1:1 ratio of sodium to chlorine atoms. This suggests that the universe is NOT random and behaves in very strict and preditible ways.
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.