Darwinsbulldog wrote:

rainbow wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:

rainbow wrote:Say you found a packet of nuts, washers and bolts in the desert.
Would you reject this as evidence that cars can assemble themselves?

I'd probably just eat the packet of nuts.

You could bolt down the nuts, but what do you do with the washers?

Screw 'em! Good for the nuts.

Self-tapping?

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:
You have little Faith.

Say you found a packet of nuts, washers and bolts in the desert.
Would you reject this as evidence that cars can assemble themselves?

Cars aren't made of molecules, and their parts usually don't have natural affinities for each other, can't chemically interact with each other like atomic size structures can, and they are't subject to natural selection, neither are they produced in nature as far as I know.

Cars are in fact made of molecules.

Well sure, and atoms too. But my point is that the equivocation between nuts/bolts and molecules is false.

It is an analogy and is perfectly valid. They are both components of a greater whole.
I'm amazed you didn't get that.

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:As for natural selection, how did this apply to the first replicator?

The first relicator would be replicating itself, making errors in the process(mutations), the nature of which would subsequently be either neutral, or selectively beneficial or deleterious, depending on the environment.

Sorry, but this fails to explain how the first replicator could be formed from a mix of so-called 'building blocks'. Please tell us how this could happen. Remember if it was the first, no mutations could occur previous to its formation.

Rumraket wrote: Yes, the phrase "assemble itself" is stupid. Out with it. If one absolutely must describe the origin of life in two words, I'd go with something like chemical evolution instead. Of course, that still doesn't mean one should think the entire subject is summed up in a two-word title, nor that the word evolution necessarily refers to classic darwinian evolution.

Whatever you might call it, if it didn't assemble itself, then some outside agent did it. Is this what you are arguing for?

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:As for natural selection, how did this apply to the first replicator?

The first relicator would be replicating itself, making errors in the process(mutations), the nature of which would subsequently be either neutral, or selectively beneficial or deleterious, depending on the environment.

Sorry, but this fails to explain how the first replicator could be formed from a mix of so-called 'building blocks'. Please tell us how this could happen. Remember if it was the first, no mutations could occur previous to its formation.

The question you're asking now is different from the one I responded to. I can't tell you how the first replicator could form, other than to say that if it was a polymer, the joining together of the individual units would have been thermodynamically favorable under the extant circumstances, otherwise it wouldn't have happened.

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote: Yes, the phrase "assemble itself" is stupid. Out with it. If one absolutely must describe the origin of life in two words, I'd go with something like chemical evolution instead. Of course, that still doesn't mean one should think the entire subject is summed up in a two-word title, nor that the word evolution necessarily refers to classic darwinian evolution.

Whatever you might call it, if it didn't assemble itself, then some outside agent did it. Is this what you are arguing for?

I think both terms "assemble itself" and "outside agent" is rather poor, in that they could be misconstrued to imply some sort of intentionality or intelligent(by a mind) direction in nature. But yes, if we take care and expend some effort in defining what we mean, this "outside agent" could be a description of the specific chemical and physical environment that favored the (therefore not necessarily self)-assembly of some kind of replicating physical and chemical entity.

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
Cars aren't made of molecules, and their parts usually don't have natural affinities for each other, can't chemically interact with each other like atomic size structures can, and they are't subject to natural selection, neither are they produced in nature as far as I know.

Cars are in fact made of molecules.

Well sure, and atoms too. But my point is that the equivocation between nuts/bolts and molecules is false.

It is an analogy and is perfectly valid. They are both components of a greater whole.
I'm amazed you didn't get that.

It is perfectly invalid and I explained why, but you haven't responded to that piece of my post at all. Weren't you a chemist?

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:
Cars are in fact made of molecules.

Well sure, and atoms too. But my point is that the equivocation between nuts/bolts and molecules is false.

It is an analogy and is perfectly valid. They are both components of a greater whole.
I'm amazed you didn't get that.

It is perfectly invalid and I explained why, but you haven't responded to that piece of my post at all. Weren't you a chemist?

Indeed, and you presented no chemistry in that post to support your argument.
What was to respond to?
The validity of my comparison remains valid.

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote: Yes, the phrase "assemble itself" is stupid. Out with it. If one absolutely must describe the origin of life in two words, I'd go with something like chemical evolution instead. Of course, that still doesn't mean one should think the entire subject is summed up in a two-word title, nor that the word evolution necessarily refers to classic darwinian evolution.

Whatever you might call it, if it didn't assemble itself, then some outside agent did it. Is this what you are arguing for?

I think both terms "assemble itself" and "outside agent" is rather poor, in that they could be misconstrued to imply some sort of intentionality or intelligent(by a mind) direction in nature. But yes, if we take care and expend some effort in defining what we mean, this "outside agent" could be a description of the specific chemical and physical environment that favored the (therefore not necessarily self)-assembly of some kind of replicating physical and chemical entity.

Wibble.
It is either one or the other.
Which is it?

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:As for natural selection, how did this apply to the first replicator?

The first relicator would be replicating itself, making errors in the process(mutations), the nature of which would subsequently be either neutral, or selectively beneficial or deleterious, depending on the environment.

Sorry, but this fails to explain how the first replicator could be formed from a mix of so-called 'building blocks'. Please tell us how this could happen. Remember if it was the first, no mutations could occur previous to its formation.

The question you're asking now is different from the one I responded to. I can't tell you how the first replicator could form, other than to say that if it was a polymer, the joining together of the individual units would have been thermodynamically favorable under the extant circumstances, otherwise it wouldn't have happened.

...which is exactly like saying the nuts and bolts that make up a car have to fit together, otherwise it would fall apart.

Where are the nuts and bolts on the windscreen?

John

Not necessary, that would be thermodynamically unfavourable

rainbow wrote:
It is an analogy and is perfectly valid.

It's a lame analogy

rainbow wrote:It is an analogy and is perfectly valid. They are both components of a greater whole.
I'm amazed you didn't get that.

I think it is a lame analogy.

Paul wrote:

rainbow wrote:
It is an analogy and is perfectly valid.

It's a lame analogy

It lacks lameness.

rainbow wrote:

Paul wrote:

rainbow wrote:
It is an analogy and is perfectly valid.

It's a lame analogy

It lacks lameness.

If it were a donkey, it would be missing its hind legs. It might look promising as it hobbles along for the first couple of metres, but eventually you have to realise it's not going to get you very far, at least, not quickly or in any efficient manner.

LucidFlight wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Paul wrote:

rainbow wrote:
It is an analogy and is perfectly valid.

It's a lame analogy

It lacks lameness.

If it were a donkey, it would be missing its hind legs.

...but it isn't a donkey. Who ever heard of a donkey that self-assembles itself out of bolts?
A donkey might however bolt, but then not if it were lame.

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
Well sure, and atoms too. But my point is that the equivocation between nuts/bolts and molecules is false.

It is an analogy and is perfectly valid. They are both components of a greater whole.
I'm amazed you didn't get that.

It is perfectly invalid and I explained why, but you haven't responded to that piece of my post at all. Weren't you a chemist?

Indeed, and you presented no chemistry in that post to support your argument.

I explained that molecular sized structures behave differently from macroscopic ones, and they do. So the equivocation remains false.

rainbow wrote:What was to respond to?
The validity of my comparison remains valid.

No, the equivocation still remains false. And I've now explained myself twice.

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote: Yes, the phrase "assemble itself" is stupid. Out with it. If one absolutely must describe the origin of life in two words, I'd go with something like chemical evolution instead. Of course, that still doesn't mean one should think the entire subject is summed up in a two-word title, nor that the word evolution necessarily refers to classic darwinian evolution.

Whatever you might call it, if it didn't assemble itself, then some outside agent did it. Is this what you are arguing for?

I think both terms "assemble itself" and "outside agent" is rather poor, in that they could be misconstrued to imply some sort of intentionality or intelligent(by a mind) direction in nature. But yes, if we take care and expend some effort in defining what we mean, this "outside agent" could be a description of the specific chemical and physical environment that favored the (therefore not necessarily self)-assembly of some kind of replicating physical and chemical entity.

Wibble.

No, fact.

It is either one or the other.
Which is it?

No it's none of them, my above given exposition is still valid. I'll quote it here again in case you forgot to read it.
I think both terms "assemble itself" and "outside agent" is rather poor, in that they could be misconstrued to imply some sort of intentionality or intelligent(by a mind) direction in nature. But yes, if we take care and expend some effort in defining what we mean, this "outside agent" could be a description of the specific chemical and physical environment that favored the (therefore not necessarily self)-assembly of some kind of replicating physical and chemical entity.

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
The first relicator would be replicating itself, making errors in the process(mutations), the nature of which would subsequently be either neutral, or selectively beneficial or deleterious, depending on the environment.

Sorry, but this fails to explain how the first replicator could be formed from a mix of so-called 'building blocks'. Please tell us how this could happen. Remember if it was the first, no mutations could occur previous to its formation.

The question you're asking now is different from the one I responded to. I can't tell you how the first replicator could form, other than to say that if it was a polymer, the joining together of the individual units would have been thermodynamically favorable under the extant circumstances, otherwise it wouldn't have happened.

...which is exactly like saying the nuts and bolts that make up a car have to fit together, otherwise it would fall apart.

Yes, but they don't attract or repel each other, and start making covalent bonds like molecules do. In any case, I don't presume to know how the first replicator formed, as a corollary of not knowing what it was made of.