Mark Corbett

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Yes of course replication is essential for evolution. However the purpose of this research was not to demonstrate the development of self-replication, nor does it claim any such thing. The title is: "Evolutionary transition from a single RNA replicator to a multiple replicator network". The paper does demonstrate that. 

Have you actually read the paper?

I have actually read the paper. I agree that the paper is more cautious in its claims than the press release from the University and from the news articles that followed. The news articles did make it sound like the experiment had discovered a self-replicating RNA. Here are two examples:

"According to SciTechDaily.com, the first RNA molecule that can replicate itself was created, thanks to scientists from the University of Tokyo."

Source:   https://www.healththoroughfare.com/science/scientists-create-the-first-rna-molecule-that-replicates/45320

AND

"AN RNA molecule that can self-replicate, change its form and develop complexity - or, in other words, evolve - has been developed by researchers for the first time in a discovery that could shine a light on how life first emerged."

from:  https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1582670/origins-of-life-breakthrough-evolving-rna-molecule-created-first-time-tokyo

14 minutes ago, exchemist said:

That's a bit silly, frankly. As both you and I have pointed out, that is not what the paper is about. It's just a typical pop-sci headline: eye-catching but misleading. So why waste time on that? 

It would be far more interesting if you can build on my brief summary of what it seemed to me the paper actually is about, as per post 2.  

 

The paper claims that the experiment demonstrates evolution. But evolution is not possible, even in theory, if there is no self-replication. So self-replication is a foundational issue.

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

It's hard to figure out if you're serious about discussing science, or more interested in pushing the views for your YT channel.

Try discussing some of the science that is related to the topic and we can find out.
Example: Do you agree that the experiment in question succeeded in producing a molecule or system of molecules that self-replicated?

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

In post 2 of this thread I made the same  point and provided both a link to the paper and a synopsis of the research, last Tuesday.

All without making a video, too! 😀

I'm sure many people (if many people read this thread) will prefer your short summary in writing to my more detailed (to many, too detailed, perhaps) video. I'm thankful that you made that short written comment.

I feel that the news reports on this experiment are misleading.

The experiment did not produce any self-replication. The replication involved required the use of a whole translation system that was made by living bacterial cell and then taken out of the cell. The translation system itself was not replicated in the experiment, but performed vital steps in the replication process for the RNA. I explain more about this in this YouTube video. Note: the provocative title was inspired by a statement made famous by Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, I think it is unlikely that the authors of the science reports were intentionally lying. I do think their reports include misleading and false statements.