RNA does not require a cell structure in order to replicate. Nor does it require “protiens.” Nor does it require a cell structure to change and evolve. See my previous posts.
Let’s ask a simple question. Is there anything in your view of science that would have predicted Spiegelman’s monster? Is there anything in your approach to science that would suggest attempting this line of research?
I ask this because my main objection to intelligent design is that it doesn’t lead to any interesting research. Hasn’t in two hundred years. Why should we look for natural causes if everything is caused by angels?
True- pure standalone RNA doesn’t- but systems are not made up of standalone RNA only- they are vastly more ocmplex, and it is biologically impossible to produce these vastly more complex systems from simple standalone RNA’s to the advanced irreducibly somplex we have today through a completely random mistake driven system- information is needed, instructions are needed, and life, with it’s DNA+ repair instrucitons couldn’t come about naturally- simply taking a single instance of a simplified structure such as RNA and claiming it extends to all life is misleading
[[I ask this because my main objection to intelligent design is that it doesn’t lead to any interesting research. Hasn’t in two hundred years.]]
If you beleive that, then you obviously aren’t very informed on what ID studies. You evidently simply dismiss out of hand any htought of design needing a designer, and as such, you you deprive yourself of the very interesting studies done in ID thinking that all design can be explained naturally when there is no scientific evidence that it was. The designs in nature, the complexities in nature, more point toward a designer than they do naturalistic causes that defy statistical, mathematical and natural laws at every step of the literally trillions of steps needed to get to where we are today. You dismiss stright out of hand a more logical explanation and I guess prefere one that takes an incredible amount of faith and evidence ignoring to beleive in.
I’’ll look into Spiegals monster a bit more later
[[Why should we look for natural causes if everything is caused by angels?]]
Because natural causes follow natural laws and can explain things we need to know- but this in no way automatically rules out a Creative Designer, infact, the natural laws and the complexities that accompany naturalk laws and which defy natural causations point to a creative causation time and time again. There are things, systems, which do defy natural causations, and which naturalistic explanations come up short in answering.
Perhaps you could ask Newton and his contemporaries that question. He believed in creation and it was certainly the motivation for him to decide that the universe was orderly and predictable and we could learn more about it by observing it.
I ask this because my main objection to intelligent design is that it doesn’t lead to any interesting research.
And you can demonstrate that as a fact how?