No @Meerkat_SK5, your purely rhetorical employment of the vacuous phrase “human information” notwhithstanding, you have shown nothing of the sort.
These experiments merely show human ability to recreate naturally occurring biological phenomena, that are themselves DNA (and RNA-based). These DNA/RNA recreations do not play Pacman, run a database search, report the latest World news, or do any of the other things that “human information” typically does.
This ability to recreate is in no way probative. Human ability to build arches does not make them similar (in any way beyond the most superficial) to natural arches.
They have not shown anything of the sort. And nothing you have presented here comes close to demonstrating this.
You are conflating information with medium. That both music and computer games can be stored on CD does not make them “the same or highly similar”.
The “human information [that] is stored in the DNA” would not be interpretable by the biological systems that translate naturallyu occuring DNA, and naturally occuring DNA would result in garbage if it were fed into the DNA-as-storage-medium reader. This demonstrates that they are incompatible rather than “the same or highly similar”.
This claim, which you have made before (and which I think was rejected before), it utter balderdash. Nonsense on stilts.
Given that everything that you have said to support this conclusion has been erroneous, your huffing AND puffing is simply (metaphorical) hot air.
They are in fact completely irrelevant to that question.
And your argument has failed. Completely.
Given that the “lightning strikes, volcanic erruptions, and who knows what else” I was discussing are “material mechanisms”, it is hard to see what I am equivocating.
Only with a near-infinite amount of lab space (every material mechanism, and every set of precursor conditions, that might have occurred over the entire Earth over millions of years) and infinite imagination (to tabulate them all).
That we know of, and can accurately replicate, a few specific circumstances does not mean that we can replaicate everything that might have occured.
Millions of years affects the shear volume of potential circumstances to be replicated, not necessarilly the time required to replicate each one of them.
The tiny amount of largely irrelevant evidence supports no such grandiloquent and verbose conclusion. Bolding it just emphasises its vacuity.
I’m sure there is very little here that you haven’t asserted before. But repetition does nothing to improve its value.
But given that I was neither discussing the reducibility or irreducibility of early life, nor the involvement of a putative intelligent designer (divine or otherwise), it would seem that this comment is irrelevant.
No @Meerkat_SK5. You have simply asserted that these experiments demonstrate this.
Given that in both this, and the preceding thread where you brought up Lijia Yu et al, you simply baldly cited the paper, rather than providing any discussion of how you think it supports your position, I have no reason to believe that you have even read this paper, let alone understood it.
This paper does not claim that they are “literally the same” or even "highly similar*, only that they are analogous, which is a far weaker statement.
When you spam your quotemines so liberally, over so many different threads, it is hard to keep track of who has already criticised what. No criticism was leveled at it on this thread, where you employed the bald quotation of it as an attempt to rebut my rebuttal (which you quoted above) of your attempt to employ (the bald citation of) Lijia Yu et al to bolster your argument. Given that you have decided to resurrect this issue, I’ve tried to be thorough in addressing all outstanding issues, both here and on the original thread.