Rob writes:
In short... You can't use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA, without assuming the existence of the very thing you are trying to explain. Because, you need DNA to have natural selection.
Can science that is limited to natural causes counter this observation, or must we invoke interference by intelligence?
Who needs science when simple logic can do the trick?
Imperfect replication in an environment of limited resources
must be subject to selection, no matter what the nature of the replicator in question is. Imperfect replication means that descendants are not equal. If a difference between replicators affects the chances of a successful replication for either of them with respect to the other, then, statistically, the more successful should outperform the less so in the long run.
You don't need DNA for it to work like that: any precursor of DNA, even any other molecule capable of replication in some way, is subject to selection, as long as the replication is not always perfect, and the environment doesn't provide enough resources for the needs of each and every replication attempt.
Off-topic note for Happy Atheist (and others):
"Begging the question" is a specific fallacy whereby that which is to be proven is assumed in the premises of the proof. An example can be found here:
quote:
Begging the Question (petitio principii)
Begging the question is the fallacy of using the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises offered in its own support. Although this often happens in an implicit or disguised fashion, an explicit version would look like this:
* All dogs are mammals.
* All mammals have hair.
* Since animals with hair bear live young, dogs bear live young.
* But all animals that bear live young are mammals.
* Therefore, all dogs are mammals.
Unlike the other fallacies we've considered, begging the question involves an argument (or chain of arguments) that is formally valid: if its premises (including the first) are true, then the conclusion must be true. The problem is that this valid argument doesn't really provide support for the truth its conclusion; we can't use it unless we have already granted that.
You use "begging the question" in a sort of colloquial way, expressing the idea that a certain line of reasoning raises other questions to be pondered. That's not how it's supposed to be used. I just thought I'd mention it. (By the way, you're not the only one who makes this mistake, I've seen others do it as well.)
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
™ Version 4.2
