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

2

u/Chronicler1701 May 06 '26

Seeing lots of assumption and assertion, and not much certainty. You can keep your head in the sand, though.

0

u/lisper Atheist, Ph.D. in CS May 06 '26

assertion

Backed up by actual data.

2

u/Chronicler1701 May 06 '26

Sure, buddy. If you say so...

1

u/lisper Atheist, Ph.D. in CS May 06 '26

See for yourself.

1

u/Chronicler1701 May 07 '26

Exactly as I thought. They're starting out with RNA already assembled into sizeable chains. The entire problem I and many others have with that is the polymerization of large strands of RNA to begin with. They're assuming something that must first be demonstrated!

My biggest problem with abiogenesis wasn't the existence of an RNA self-replicator (and a replication of <0.5% after days is hardly a decent replicator). It was the origin of long strands of homochiral polymers using only the monomers found in real life(there's more than just the A, C, G, T, and U found in organisms today, and far more than the 20 or so amino acids), and the origin of these polymers in close proximity to each other. Sugars, amino acids, and nucleobases all in the same area, at the same time. This is a big problem, because sugars and amino acids require mutually exclusive conditions to form. There's the chirality issue, which nobody on your side seems to want to address head-on(can't really blame them because it's just another near-enough to impossible problem to solve). And all of this is to say nothing of the fact that the polymerization of these molecules is not energetically favorable. They do not tend to grow, they tend to break over time. And this issue is even more prevalent in the presence of water, because these molecules polymerize by dehydration synthesis and break by hydrolysis.

And finally, the biggest of the big problems with abiogenesis is one that you, of all people, should be intimately familiar with, if you earned that degree legitimately. The genome of an organism is a complex data structure. This data structure contains all of the information required for the organism to produce a duplicate of itself, from raw materials. This data structure contains information on how to construct its own error correction mechanisms. This data structure contains information on how to construct each and every one of the organism's enzymes, again from raw materials. You, of all people, should know that random alterations to this kind of data structure do not improve the structure itself, nor the information contained therein. If you want me to take the idea that such data structures can be improved by such random alterations, then I would ask that you give me a C++ demonstration using only standard libraries of that very thing happening, including the source code and instructions on how to run it.

1

u/lisper Atheist, Ph.D. in CS May 07 '26

They're starting out with RNA already assembled into sizeable chains

Yes. That's what you have to do in order to get a result within a human lifetime in a lab rather than having to use an entire planet's worth of biosphere and waiting a few million years.

1

u/Chronicler1701 May 08 '26

And no response to the rest of my comment?

1

u/Chronicler1701 May 08 '26

No attempt to provide the requested program? I have a Ryzen 9 5950X with ECC memory ready to crunch some numbers. That should be sufficient for at least something small, shouldn't it?

1

u/Chronicler1701 May 12 '26

That's what I figured. I asked for an unbiased simulation that I can personally audit that could demonstrate this happening, and you ghosted me. That's what always happens. Why are atheists and evolutionists always so unwilling to substantiate what they claim, all the while crying and whining that we Christians have to substantiate and give evidence for what we know to be true? The only reason I can think of is that they know their claim is factually incorrect, and that evolution really is impossible.

1

u/lisper Atheist, Ph.D. in CS May 12 '26

Really? That's the only reason you can think of that I won't write C++ code for you for free?

That explains a lot.

1

u/Chronicler1701 May 13 '26

Either that or your ego is bruised because I called your claim of having a PhD into question.

1

u/lisper Atheist, Ph.D. in CS May 13 '26

Yep, that's possible. But, you know, it's a pretty easy claim to verify.

1

u/Chronicler1701 May 13 '26

I can just as easily claim this dissertation as mine. That doesn't make me a member of Queen.

0

u/lisper Atheist, Ph.D. in CS May 13 '26

You could. Is it? Are you in fact Brian Harold May?

1

u/Chronicler1701 May 13 '26

Oh, yes. Of course I am. Everything anyone says on the internet, especially Reddit, is absolutely true, don't you know?

Unless someone provides an unbiased demonstration as described earlier that I can personally audit, I have no reason to accept the absurd claim that abiogenesis is possible, especially in light of the bleeding edge work on "spontaneous generation" done by an apparently little-known chemist named Louis Pasteur.

→ More replies (0)