257
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 60:
Line 60: + + + +
Talk:Origin of Life (view source)
Revision as of 15:17, December 30, 2008
, 15:17, December 30, 2008→Rebuttals of problems: added a response
::::: How does the article misrepresent the naturalistic viewpoint?
::::: How does the article misrepresent the naturalistic viewpoint?
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::::::In the modern day, RNA needs living things to reproduce, but in the naturalist 3.5 billion years ago earth, it was able to naturally. The Spiegleman Monster showed that RNA can reproduce on its own if placed in a RNA nucleotide solution ''without'' proteins or living organisms. As you pointed out, it did not actually solve anything as it never grows more complex.
::::::On how the naturalist view is misrepresented, I should have said that it is not ''presented''. The article mentions abiogenesis and panspermia, but does not explain them. The article jumps directly to disproving the hypotheses without showing what they are. It would be more effective to put down each of the origin of life theories and explain them separately. Abiogenesis, Panspermia, and Intelligent Design should have sections within the article.
::::::Should we start this under a new header in the talk page? We have deviated somewhat from the original question.
::::::[[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 10:17, 30 December 2008 (EST)
==Superfluous link==
==Superfluous link==