1. Nobody suggests that DNA emerged fully formed - it was proceded by an age of RNA-based chemistry.
I agree with the RNA world theory as far as this subject, but you'd be surprised how "controversial" it is. It is not universally accepted by any means.
Still, the question would then simply be bounced a step and you'd have to then say, "Nobody suggests that RNA emerged fully formed".
2. Pre-RNA molecules/structures would still have to be self-replicating, thus introducing a variety of selection pressures that would accelerate the rate of information retention for re-use in a subsequent iteration.
Fine, but totally theoretical.
3. How much "data" is contained in a self-replicating compound? Is it more or less than in a sentence of Hamlet? Your Hamlet string has behind it a whole language, with idiom and abstract meaning, embeded in a complex cultural context. The compound only needs to specify how to make a copy of itself.
I don't get this Hamlet stuff. I don't get the point of this approach.
Data is not the same thing as raw information.
Makes sense to me. I suspect we will soon need to find a new subject to disagree over. :) Indeed, the data is up to the researcher to define.
1. Nobody suggests that DNA emerged fully formed - it was proceded by an age of RNA-based chemistry. --me
I agree with the RNA world theory as far as this subject, but you'd be surprised how "controversial" it is. It is not universally accepted by any means.
Agreed. The experimental chemistry is not as well developed as we would like, the computer models are still too complex to run, and there is no fossil evidence. But it is plausible and testable, and it is the best scientific hypothesis to fit the observed facts. Non-scientific hypotheses (including ID) are options at this point, but they would be, of course, non-scientific.
Still, the question would then simply be bounced a step and you'd have to then say, "Nobody suggests that RNA emerged fully formed".
Indeed, I do not suggest such a thing. RNA emerged from simpler protiens and peptide strings, etc... which all emerged in a two-steps-forward-one-step-back progression from the primordial stew. As such, environmental and selection pressures operated to favor complexity almost from the beginning.
Fine, but totally theoretical.
Well, the chemistry is a bit more promising than that. I've linked to a few articles over the last two hundred or so posts. Others here have offered more technical assessments as well.
I don't get this Hamlet stuff. I don't get the point of this approach.
Given your opinion of Watson, I am not surprised. It was his argument, after all.