I have found no worthwhile evidence that an "RNA world" ever existed and, in my opinion, RNA would not have been a suitable material for a replicator - it is much too labile, the precursor nucleotides would not have formed and selective competition could not have arisen in the absence of bounding to define the evolving system. Robert Shapiro argues against any replicators being involved in the origin of life and I agree with him - excepting that the sun's daily cycle might be construed as a replicator.
Today, you have again presented the group with an extended screed of ad hominem abuse. Those who try to debate alongside you must find your behaviour an embarrassment.
It seems to me that this thread has somewhat devolved into an argument without any agreed upon subject matter. So, perhaps a little recap is in order:
1. The original premise was that Kleinman asserted to Paul Anagnostopoulos that ev showed an RMNS selection process which was too profoundly slow for any reasonable model of evolution.
2. After a great deal of fussing around, a poster with a wry enough humor to ID him/herself as "Unnamed," came up with a new selection mechanism which sped up ev to a satisfactory performance.
3. Kleinman's rebuttal was that the new mechanism ignored mutations in the non-binding site region (junk DNA), therefore it was invalid. However, Kleinman never actually explained why such a selection mechanism is invalid, nor did he ever propose a more valid mechanism.
4. Simultaneously, Kleinman asserted, that regardless of the selection mechanism chosen for ev, at some point in the life of every organism, a new gene must be formed, and that until that gene offers some selective benefit to the organism, its formation is subject to only the laws of probability, and is therefore profoundly unlikely.
5. Kleinman also adds to his argument, that the first self-replicating organism would have had to have been created without the benefit of a selection mechanism, and that such a feat is beyond the realm of mathematical possibility.
6. A reasonably objective reading of this thread suggests, that events #4-5 above, although arguably meritorious, are irrelevant, because at the point that event #3 occurred, the original argument of the thread was resolved: ev was made fast enough to evolve a genome from a state of total randomness to a perfect creature within the time available since the likely beginning of life on Earth.
We are now in an entirely different argument, or rather two arguments -- neither of which depend upon Schneider's ev program at all. As above-stated, the questions are:
1. How does a new gene arise?
2. How did the first self-replicating organism arise?
If I may offer a suggestion, I think it is a mistake to attempt to argue both of these questions simultaneously, because of the possibility that the answers may be quite different. And, as the thread is currently in a sea of storms, I think the evidence clearly demonstrates the gravity of the mistake.
So, Dr. Kleinman, do you think we could argue over just one of the above, rather than both? And, if so, then which one would you pick?
