@Setanta,
Quote:Can you explain why anyone should consider DNA to be infinitely more unlikely?
We are not currently able to show that functional RNA did result from natural causes.
From Wikipedia:
Quote:Although short self-replicating RNA molecules have been artificially produced in laboratories,[81] doubts have been raised about where natural non-biological synthesis of RNA is possible.[82] The earliest "ribozymes" may have been formed of simpler nucleic acids such as PNA, TNA or GNA, which would have been replaced later by RNA.[83][84]
The origin of DNA is even harder to explain.
It’s not the molecule itself that is so unlikely. It is the information encoded in the DNA that isn’t plausible. But the truly implausible thing is that the
system built around/for that information is
compatible with it, that is the show stopper for me. Far too many things had to require forethought and planning.
That
system (the complex hardware DNA runs on) has not changed or evolved in these billions of years. Functional systems like that just do not emerge by natural causes. I’m just surprised that this isn’t obvious to everyone.
The DNA software the system is running has changed greatly but not the basic design of DNA based Lifeforms.
That is the basic premise behind calling all living organisms Software Defined Lifeforms.
The next best example of self organizing system sometimes cited by natural abiogenesis advocates is the 'eddy', either in air or fluid. If all natural self organization of function is possible, shouldn’t there be countless examples between an eddy in a stream and 'life'? But we don’t see that. Ever. (The oft quoted crystal or snowflake do not qualify as functional systems) That’s why we know that the lines drawn on a piece of rock came from an intelligent source, nature does not organize things with 'intention' to quote the
Nature article.
But I digress.