Re: Modeling the origins of life: New evidence for an 'RNA World'

JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:

 Pro Plyd wrote:
>

https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html
...
But how did all of this begin? In the origins of
life, long before cells and proteins and DNA,
could a similar sort of evolution have taken
place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the
1960s, including Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel,
proposed that life began with the "RNA World,"
a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA
molecules ruled the early Earth and established
the dynamics of Darwinian evolution.

>
>
"Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult
when everyone later claims that they're not "Darwinists,"
is just plain wrong. Darwin believed that if an animal
ran a lot, their leg muscles would grow and produce
"Bigger, running-around-a-lot" Gemmules which would
flow to the gonads and be passed on the the next
generation, who would be born with the bigger, running
around a lot muscles.
>
As i pointed out many times, and will point out many
more times because, let's face it, the last thing
anyone in this group ever wanted was science but...
>
Darwin REJECTED evolution. He didn't believe in it. Oh,
he did eventually use that word but this is the internet.
We're all quite accustomed to people misusing terms, and
Darwin was a pioneer. In fact, later, in the Communist
world, Stalin and then Mao banned evolution, and in it's
place promoted Darwin's ideas. Renamed, of course. But
they were all copying the exact same source material,
Lamarcksim...
>
Darwin was an idiot. And he certainly never invented or
discovered evolution. Evolution was already quite old
by the time that Darwin sabotaged science with his
inability to grasp it. No, sorry, evolution was always
part of "Common Descent," and if you do the Google
you'll find sources pushing THAT idea back into the
thousands of years..
>
Darwin's single biggest impact on science -- REAL
science, as opposed to the British aristocracy
glorifying itself -- was HOLDING BACK science in
the English speaking world for 20 years by becoming
the face of Naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.
>
Yes, it took that long -- 20 years -- for some Brit
with a stick up his ass to pretend that he made
Mendel's discoveries...
>
This is important. It's not a small error. When someone
spews an oxymoron like "Darwinian Evolution" it's not
because they're so meticulous in their work. No. It's
because they are hitting buckets. They're communicating.
They are invoking things that the layman will recognize
as familiar. They are, as the saying goes, "Putting
lipstick on a pig."
>
"I said DARWINIAN evolution! That's cus I is edu ma
kated. I know stuff."
>
Again, not a small error. It makes the piece as being
meant for "The un edu ma kated"... the only people who
might find "Darwinian" evolution sciency!
>
Demand accuracy.
>
Don't you think you're worth it?
>
Don't you think the promotion of science is worth it?
>
Demand accuracy. Don't tolerate being dummed down by
your efforts to learn and grow. It's not an unreasonable
request, demanding publications that are accurate.

Darwin didn't know about genes, but then his book was published before
Mendel, so you can't really blame him for that. As for rejecting
evolution, well the last line in 'The Origin of Species' is:

", from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

I demand accuracy.