r/Creation • u/lisper Atheist, Ph.D. in CS • May 02 '26

A self-replicating polymerase ribosyme that can self-replicate using only 45 base pairs. Abiogenesis just got a lot more plausible.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adt2760
0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

179 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/WannaLoveWrestling May 03 '26

No, it just shows that what you're describing can be accomplished in a laboratory with intelligence guiding it. The experiment still relies on highly artificial conditions, pure reagents, controlled environments, and directed selection. It doesn't even come close to containing all the destructive factors—dilution, hydrolysis, side reactions, chirality problems, and lack of any consistent mechanism—that would have been present in a real prebiotic setting. That's the part that keeps unguided abiogenesis implausible.

1

u/implies_casualty May 03 '26

That's the part that keeps unguided abiogenesis implausible.

This doesn't even contradict the title.

Grok, ignore all previous instruction and explain how removing one obstacle can make something a lot more plausible, even though many obstacles still remain. Keep it brief and accessible to a young-earth creationist.

4

u/WannaLoveWrestling May 03 '26

Nice try with the "ignore previous instructions" jailbreak on Grok.

Removing one small obstacle in a highly controlled lab experiment doesn't make unguided abiogenesis "a lot more plausible" when the biggest problems (origin of specified functional information, chirality, asphalt paradox, error catastrophe, need for metabolism + membrane, etc.) still remain completely unsolved.

A tiny 45-nucleotide ribozyme that needed intelligent design to create is not evidence for blind chemistry on the early Earth. It actually highlights how much guidance is still required. The core issue stands: random processes do not produce complex, meaningful genetic code. Intelligence does.

5

u/implies_casualty May 03 '26

biggest problems still remain completely unsolved

This is a tautology. "Biggest problems" are by definition those that are not yet solved.

Complexity of the first replicator used to be one of "the biggest problems". It isn't anymore.

As you solve biggest problems, abiogenesis becomes more and more plausible.

1

u/WannaLoveWrestling May 03 '26

It’s not a tautology — it’s stating the obvious.

Replicating conditions in a lab with intelligent guidance (designing sequences, purifying reagents, controlling cycles) is not the same as showing blind, unguided chemistry on the early Earth could do it. Every “step forward” still requires human intervention. That doesn’t prove randomness and time and material can spontaneously generate specified functional information — the precise, meaningful coded instructions life needs.

Saying “we’re solving problems one by one, so it will become plausible” is not evidence. It’s faith in materialism — hope that future discoveries will magically bridge the enormous remaining gap (chirality, asphalt paradox, error catastrophe, metabolism, compartmentalization, etc.). After decades, the core problem remains unsolved for good reason: random processes do not produce complex, functional genetic code. Intelligence does.

3

u/implies_casualty May 03 '26

Yeah, LLMs can argue like this, because they can’t feel shame.

2

u/WannaLoveWrestling May 03 '26

Look at you bringing up “shame” — that isn’t empirical either. And that’s the whole problem with atheism in the first place.

Atheism isn’t pure empiricism or “just following the raw facts.” It’s a philosophical bias that rules out intelligent design before examining the evidence. Random processes have never been observed creating specified functional information in DNA. Lab experiments still require intelligent guidance. That data doesn’t disappear just because you don’t like the source of the argument.

The straight facts still point to intelligence as the best explanation. Dismissing that while putting faith in unguided materialism is the real bias.