It is not merely true in some idealized world, it is a fact supported by ALL observations in the real world to date. There are no counterexamples of a code, where the origin of the code is known, arising from a purely naturalistic source.
...but chemistry includes all kinds of possibilities for evolving codes and code readers without outside intervention.chemistry includes all kinds of possibilities for evolving codes and code readers without outside intervention.
Such as?
How does chemistry get chemistry to represent something other than itself?
Cordially,
That’s what I’m wondering myself diamond. I know Demski thinks life might get information from nature, but everythign I’ve read abotu that is woefully innadequate when it comes to building a complex metainformaiton, and quite frankly, ‘taking cues from nature’ (such as ‘lava is hot- avoid at all costs) can NOT influence genetic code, but can ONLY contribute to survival of those species ‘smart’ enough to avoid lava flows.
There is soem reasearch that I know of that looks into RNA being the ‘beginning of life’ however, the lab experiments being done that proposed they ‘created life’ did NOT infact create life, al lthey created was an intelligently designed, controlled, intelligently selected for, and intelligently protected and directed experiment with designer RNA that does NOT reflect natural processes at all. All the experiemnt showed was the NEED for an intelligent designer guiding hte process super-naturally.
If there are other ‘bold studies’ beign performed looking into an alleged naturalistic rise of information, and not just some manipulaiton of informaiton already present at highly complex levels, I am unaware of those experiments, and liek you say- simple manipulation of chemical code only leads to more chemical arrangements, not biological arrangements. Nature can only work within the parameters of what’s available to it, it can NOT create somethign that isn’t specific to a ‘species’ or arrangments simply by changing code within the guidelines of the infromation available to it. For the kind of macroevolutionary change to occure, you MUST introduce foreign information from a higher source, but nowhere do we find any eveidnece of that happening in nature, and infact, species have several built in, designed, protection levels to prevent this from occuring except in ‘simple’ bacteria which incidently STILL remain bacteria even htough they experience simplistic lateral gene transference from other bacteria of it’s own kind
The question is whether chemistry can produce self-replicators that evolve. This can be settled by experimentation.
You can't prove that something can't happen by defining it as impossible.