Spectrum
You insist it's not random and not blind.
Because it isn't.
Ok I'll have to read up more and either give more precise meaning or change/remove those two words altogether from my argument.
Exactomundo.
You are of the opinion that God is a sentiment of a few goatherders from the land of Canaan. My feeling is that human need to believe in God is an integral part of the human psyche. It's hardwired into us for some reason.
Oh there is sound proof of a 'god spot' in our brains that reacts to experiences of a supernatural nature. You can even stimulate it and GIVE people experiences of a religious nature. Of course, the existence of such a 'spot' is not proof of anything; what we have labelled 'religious experiences' might just had a supernatural origin stuck onto them by blind supersticion. We did it with lightening and dreams, LOL.
Near death experiences for me provide the data needed to dismiss any supernatural claim as to the origin of the god spot. A NDE will be in line with the beliefs of the person experienecing it. This shows that such experiences of the supernatural are based in our bodies, and given a veneer based upon our enculturation.
But having admitted that a sentiment for god is universal, why are you shakling the beliefs of an entire planet to the Creation myth of one small cultural group? Go back to that question (which is more likely?) and actualy answer it using common sense not preconception.
Now regarding your RNA. I'm still not quite sure what it proves. I'll tell you what I understand and you can tell me where I'm going wrong.
You've start with some complex polymer RNA, don't no where it came from, perhaps a virus,
Yup, the one in question is comes from a virus called Q(Beta). The RNA is stripped out of its protein coat and stuck in water with raw materials for RNA and Q(Beta) replicase. It then makes copies of itself - not proteins as would normally be the case.
you then change it's(RNA) environment and it hydrolyses(if that's the reaction type) in a consistent manner to a 500 unit long polymer. OK so this molecule breaks down in a test tube environment.
The infecting part is lost, so what?
The 'so what' is evolution.
There is no selection pressure for RNA chains with coding for infecting bacteria. They are in an environment with no bacteria.
There is selection pressure benefiting those RNA chains with characteristics best suited for survival and popagation in a test tube (RNA duplication is not particulary free from error).
This is not a simple chemical reaction. It is a self-replicating organic entity changing due to environmental pressure. If you add a toxin to the environment, the end product of the test will be resistent to that toxin, further indicating RNA evolves due to environmental pressure.
In a process of many many generations (each test tube would contain lots of generations) this selection pressure means the RNA evolves in a predictable fashion, so much so that seperate runs of the experiment have more-or-less the same result. A perfect example of parrallel evolution, where organisms subjected to the same selection pressure will "develop" similar solutions to exploiting their environment.
Not sure if this lashes out at my accusation of blindness and randomness.
It's stable at 3600 units in one environment and breaks down to 500 in another. Most reactions are predictable.
This is beyond the laws of stociometric reactions Spectrum!
It is the selection of random variation in a self-replicating organism by environmental pressure so the best random variation for the environment surivives to reproduce more often than those without that random variation, and thus that random variation (or even better surviving versions of that random variation) come to demoniate the population over time.
If evolution were random, then the results would not end up more-or-less the same. In this example the variation comes from random processes, but imprtant bit the survival of a variation is not BLIND or RANDOM.
This is evolution. The start 'species' of RNA cannot make the end 'species' of RNA or vice-verca.
Back to abiogenesis and sea water.
As I point out, you were repeating a hacknied old Creationist saw that does not represent modern thinking in any way. I try to say 'golly, I made a mistake there' when it's called for. Try it sometime, it'll make for a better debate.
I get tired of Creationists ignoring the number of points they have had to ignore or concede. Ignoring the fact you've been wrong will hinder your ability to become right. Look at prime examples on this board in the goddidit leauge. They never prove anything, get their postulations whupped, and come back for more like nothing happened (you may have noticed I have to keep reminding one such poster about bristle cone pines... ).
I don't want you to acknowledge error for me, understand. I want you to do it for you. As a JW, we were constitutionally incapable of admitting doctrinal error in an honest and open fashion even when it was pushed in our face. It's a bad habit, try to control it. We both benefit if we don't blind their eyes to our errors and thereby end up repeating themselves.
