Okay, so this is going to be a continuation off of the
Abiogenesis thread. And, it's one I get to start! (yes, there's some humor there--there are already like 3 or so threads that got started thanks to the Abiogenesis thread, one I started. Not sure if a single one made it out of here [the PNT])
Anywho, in the previous thread, unless I'm grossly misrepresenting Hoot Mon's argument, he argues that:
DNA/RNA is a "digital" code. And, while this code is an intrinsic property of DNA, it is not the result of any chemical properties that we know of today. This, he argues, is an argument against any hypothesis of abiogenesis, because he just can't see how this "code" arose. Nevermind the argument of incredulity present.
I argue, as do many others:
DNA/RNA are just chemicals. Not something more thanks to this "digital code". This is not a hinderance to any hypothesis of abiogenesis.
Keep in mind, these two arguments are just rough approximations of what is like the last 50ish posts in the linked thread (Abiogenesis). That thread has hit the 300 mark, and the discussion still continues. Let it continue here.
"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant
" One useless man is a disgrace. Two are called a law firm. Three or more are called a congress" --paraphrased, John Adams
Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC
Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
™ Version 4.2