@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;65226 wrote:I have a hard time understanding how this goes against evolutionary theory...
Evolutionary biology requires life in order to work and works only upon life. This is one of the bigger retorts to creationist mumbo-jumbo (i.e. somehow evolutionary biology has to explain the
origins of life along with its diversity). The scientists are trying EXTREMELY hard not to call this life, and this shows that we need to remove the blur and solidly define what life is at that basic of a level. Right now, the barrier is set at a novel evolutionary change... something brand new that evolved through natural processes.
What this is, is a set of self-replicating and self-modifying proteins. The ONLY thing preventing this from being game-set-match is the definition of life. Now this could most certainly be the precursor to life, and the observations of evolutionary mechanics within it will add a whole new chapter to science textbooks by itself. However, as defined by science all the way back to Charlie D and beyond, this cannot fall 100% under biological evolution because what we have is not biological. It *IS* an evolutionary process, make no doubts about that one, but we have to remember the lines in the sand we draw and stay within them.
This is a game changer for many things. The sheer weight of this evidence alone is a crushing blow to so-called "Intelligent" hypotheses, and should this turn into life, abiogenesis will sit beside evolution as a cornerstone of modern biology.
Time is running out for the creationists. Tick, tock. Tick, tock. Tik, taalik.