NOT THE FIRST TIME someone has asked that kind of question. "Self replicating DNA" doesn't exist. It is a mythological "creature". In cells DNA is replicated by the action of a complex, precise internal cellular chemical and physical actions, DNA without that doesn't replicate. It and RNA are, as Francis Crick speculated and which I agree with him on, probably molecules that evolved in already existing life of a kind which we do not know but are, somehow, related to. What the biology of such organisms might be? [Shrugs]
The idea that artificial, scientist synthesized "DNA" can self-anything is even more absurd because any such replication will only happen by the intelligent design of the scientists doing the experiment and whatever chemical and energy carefully planned and provided in the vessel containing the synthesized molecule. It's no more "self-replicating" than a ventriloquist's dummy is self-talking or self-moving or self-delivering a punchline. I'd accuse scientists who talk about "self-replicating DNA" of being careless when they're talking about naturally occurring DNA and even more clueless when they claim they've produced something that creates itself. That is due to the component of ideological assertion that is the motivation of those who invented abiogenesis becoming the controlling cultural basis of their field. Abiogenesists, from the first ones till today who believe they are "proving" that intelligent design is not needed to produce "DNA" or life are cluelessly doing what I pointed out they were doing, proving that "DNA" or, maybe, someday "life" can be created by intelligent design, their work leaving their ideological claim that it could come about by spontaneous chemical combination under random chance in as unproven a state as it was before the whole Frankenstein effort was begun.
Nothing a scientist does as science can demonstrate that the effects they produce can be done without intelligent design and conscious intention because there is absolutely no way for them to cleanse those out of what they produce. And, by the way, they can't demonstrate that in nature, either.
I doubt that consciousness of the kind that we do science and all of our other such thought with can really conceive of what that would be, probably one of the reason that atheist ideologues are always, constantly and cluelessly creating unadmittedly deific creator idols out of things like "DNA," "natural selection," "random chance," "probability," "natural law," etc. Those always fall short of the claims made about them. Some start out stupider than others though none of them work very well as explanations of why things are as they are. Maybe our minds are as they are, unable to do that, to clue us in to the reality that it all is through God's intention. Someday I'll go through a theory of truth and fiction that I've been thinking through, if there's time to bring it that far.
UPDATE: Looking this over again, it occurs to me that "self-replicating DNA" would be even more like a ventriloquist's dummy reproducing itself, not even with the aid of a dummy of the opposite sex, something that even the stupidest among us can't manage single-handed.
No comments:
Post a Comment