On closer examination, the relevance to the forum seems to be, "I don't believe that life could arise from non-life." There CTD, see how simple it can be to state your case?
I see how simple it is to put words in people's mouths.
The obvious mistake here is that you state a conclusion as if it were the entire case. Of course no individual can make the entire case. There are far too many lines of reasoning and far to much evidence is available.
Information is relevant to many aspects of origins. Abiogenesis is but one falsehood a proper understanding of information will expose.
Russ has recently made the same claim, again. We've been through all of this before and there's the Abiogenesis thread to read for those who have forgotten.
Russ is not discussing the same thing I am discussing in this thread. Comprehension is a part of reading you should be familiar with if you are a teacher, and I suggest that your post is the manifestation of your underestimation of the common reader's comprehension capacity.
No scientist claims that DNA sprang up out of nowhere.
Some, many in fact, claim the entire universe sprang up out of nowhere. Well, I'm told they're "scientists".
Self-replicating molecules have been synthesised in the lab. Once you've got self-replication, natural selection can come into play, and you have evolution.
This is remarkably similar to something R2 said, and then turned right around and denied saying when I point out the absurdity of his statement.
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=42668#Post42668is the post where I called him on it. The other posts involved can be found by those whose browsers feature a scrollbar.
Self-replication does is not the only requirement for evolution/natural selection. R2 knew this, and... well, the link is there. I don't have to repeat it all.
Most people don't consider this to be any stupendous impossibility,
Most people haven't considered the matter at all. Many may be misled and think that saying "self-replicating" is all it takes to qualify one as an expert. Many who use the term haven't a clue what it really means.
Can you name even one thing found in nature that replicates itself, aside from life? Or is all known self-replication the result of design?
and most people also understand that abiogenesis and ToE are separate,
Source? This is a fairly outlandish claim, IMO. It also assumes a single "ToE", so it's not very accurate.
one good reason being that we don't have to know how life began in order to explain what's been happening to it ever since.
And we don't have to discuss information in a thread about information either, apparently.
If you dispute anything I've said, it seems it would be best to get it out of the way before discussing implications, in any case. I am amazed at how many times I see people adopt bad reasoning if they foresee an implication they don't like. Facts should be evaluated on their own merit; not dismissed or distorted to suit implications, which can themselves sometimes turn out to be illusory.
Actually, the
implications first methodology is a good way to become an evolutionist. Don't like rules? Don't like God? Don't want to think about Judgement Day? Evaluate the implications first, and choose what to believe; then prop up your belief by whatever means you can.
Myself, I didn't like some of the implications I found in life. I tried to convince myself evolution was
possible. I wasn't quite dishonest enough to pull it off. That reality won't change and conform to false beliefs is just too certain a fact. I lacked whatever it takes to overcome it.
