Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Juve, that chart is pete's post, not mine. Ask him.
As for the one bit of your post that relates to the OP.
So the LUCA is an imaginary creature, right? Do we ever find LUCA in comet? Why not?
Not imaginary in the sense that a unicorn is imaginary. More like theoretical (and I am using the scientific definition not to be confused with "guess").
Is it possible that LUCA came in a comet? Maybe.
Is it necessary or relevant to the fact that a LUCA did exist? No.
__________________ "When work seems overwhelming, remember that you are going to die" Strangely enough this motivates me.
1) How did the RNA cells get the DNA molecule from viruses?
2) The RNA information is made of RNA genes (a few hundred, say) which code for ribozymes, functional molecules made of nucleotides which have all the roles which in the future will be of proteins, and which make life possible.
But then, the RNA cells somehow receive the DNA molecule from viruses. And they transfer all their information onto DNA.
And so, the new DNA cells can start synthesizing proteins, but wait a minute, which proteins?
The information transferred from RNA to DNA was for ribozymes: the precious functional molecules were made of nucleotides.
DNA is not a functional molecule, so the old functions cannot be carried out by it. So, DNA could go on synthesizing rybozimes. And the proteins?
But the information for the proteins is not there. It should be based on a completely different code, and would be completely different: aminoacids are not nucleotides, and a ribozyme and a protein are completely different molecules, even if they carry on the same function.
Is it true that new DNA cells went on synthesizing rybozimes, and transmitting the information for them, while at the same time, through the process of gene duplication, random mutation and natural selection, they generated the new code and the new information for proteins for the same functions carried on until then by ribozymes, and when everything was ready, they gradually dismissed the old genes for ribozymes, and could enjoy their new status of DNA-protein cells and evolve further?
3) How can bacteria have enough DNA code for all that future diversity?
Juve, that chart is pete's post, not mine. Ask him.
As for the one bit of your post that relates to the OP.
Not imaginary in the sense that a unicorn is imaginary. More like theoretical (and I am using the scientific definition not to be confused with "guess").
Is it possible that LUCA came in a comet? Maybe.
Is it necessary or relevant to the fact that a LUCA did exist? No.
So, if this thing is not real, what else do you want to talk about? Do you want to talk about the theory behind the construction of Luca?
So my comment on the common ancestor of plant cell and animal cell should be true. There is not one as we know it.
1) How did the RNA cells get the DNA molecule from viruses?
Cells even today can take up DNA from the environment. Viruses would actually bring the DNA into the cells, do that is not a problem.
Originally Posted by Jazmyn
2) The RNA information is made of RNA genes (a few hundred, say) which code for ribozymes, functional molecules made of nucleotides which have all the roles which in the future will be of proteins, and which make life possible. But then, the RNA cells somehow receive the DNA molecule from viruses. And they transfer all their information onto DNA. And so, the new DNA cells can start synthesizing proteins, but wait a minute, which proteins?
It would not code for proteins, it would code directly for the ribozymes. Even today, much of the DNA in our cells codes for not for mRNA (which are translated into proteins) but for ribosomal and small RNAs which have other functions.
Originally Posted by Jazmyn
The information transferred from RNA to DNA was for ribozymes: the precious functional molecules were made of nucleotides.
The DNA would only serve as a library for the RNA enzymes at first. They are all made of nucelotides.
Originally Posted by Jazmyn
DNA is not a functional molecule, so the old functions cannot be carried out by it. So, DNA could go on synthesizing rybozimes. And the proteins?
Proteins would coem later.
Originally Posted by Jazmyn
But the information for the proteins is not there. It should be based on a completely different code, and would be completely different: aminoacids are not nucleotides, and a ribozyme and a protein are completely different molecules, even if they carry on the same function.
The genetic material would have been duplicated (like it happens today with gene duplication) and would mutate more rapidly than today (since thee would not have been robust mechanisms to repair DNA and DNA replication would have been sloppier). Thus, many variants would "evolve" and some would be slected for if they could code for useful proteins.
Originally Posted by Jazmyn
Is it true that new DNA cells went on synthesizing rybozimes, and transmitting the information for them, while at the same time, through the process of gene duplication, random mutation and natural selection, they generated the new code and the new information for proteins for the same functions carried on until then by ribozymes, and when everything was ready, they gradually dismissed the old genes for ribozymes, and could enjoy their new status of DNA-protein cells and evolve further?
That is about right.
Originally Posted by Jazmyn
3) How can bacteria have enough DNA code for all that future diversity?
DNA can be duplicated easily, once you have it.
__________________ "We must abandon the prevalent belief in the superior wisdom of the ignorant." – Daniel Boorstin
"Ignorance should NOT be tolerated just because it's cloaked in religion."
-Phred
"Creationists can't all be right but they can all be wrong."
-Frumious Bandersnatch
The way I understand it is that at the beginning of life there may have been just one, or there may have been a group of primitive cells that all engaged in horizontal gene transfer, so it may have been one LUCA or more like a communal pool of cells that everything came from. But there was a LUCA of some way, shape, and form.
Do we ever find LUCA in comet? Why not?
We’ve landed on how many comets? And it’s been how many hundreds of millions of years since the LUCA on earth? And we should find that exact same thing on a comet, despite all that time, if it even came from one in the first place?
Did I read on the chart that it were made in a "more oxidized" environment? Is that a mistake?
I don’t think so. After all, free oxygen molecules don’t really exist without something to keep manufacturing them (such as chlorophyll) because of how reactive they are. Since non-biological processes don’t release free O2, it would all have been tied up and reacted until biological processes freed it. And since oxygen is an oxidizer to pretty much everything except F (which is IIRC about the only thing that can steal electrons from O), if allllllllllllll the oxygen in the world was in compounds, compared to today it WOULD be more oxidized.
And how do we know the Hadean sea had a more acidic water (you are excused to answer this one, it is in the field of geochemistry)?
Forgive me, but I’m not sure I quite see how this question fits. Would you please elaborate what is making you ask it?
So, if this thing is not real, what else do you want to talk about?
But he never said it wasn’t real. *facepalm* According to scientific theory, there is one. What exactly it was, we don’t know.
Metherion
__________________ I can't go back to yesterday - because I was a different person then.
If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.
One of the secrets of life is that all that is really worth the doing is what we do for others.
My way of dealing with evolution is that I will throw out hard questions, so evolutionist could not answer. I count that as my victory. And based on that, evolutionist has absolutely no right to accuse anything about Creationism.
Sure, there are some questions we cannot answer. What does that have to do with the fact that creationists cannot answer any questions, except to say "That's how God did it.. Amen?"
__________________ "We must abandon the prevalent belief in the superior wisdom of the ignorant." – Daniel Boorstin
"Ignorance should NOT be tolerated just because it's cloaked in religion."
-Phred
"Creationists can't all be right but they can all be wrong."
-Frumious Bandersnatch
Sure, there are some questions we cannot answer. What does that have to do with the fact that creationists cannot answer any questions, except to say "That's how God did it.. Amen?"
Creation scientists can answer more questions in a scientific way.
Creation scientists can answer more questions in a scientific way.
Then do so. Explain exactly why we have all those transition fossils, have similar genome's with other animal species, explain distant star light, the chalk cliffs of Dover, the Great Barrier Reef, radioactive dating, evidence of civilization in 10,000 B.C. and Atavisms
The way I understand it is that at the beginning of life there may have been just one, or there may have been a group of primitive cells that all engaged in horizontal gene transfer, so it may have been one LUCA or more like a communal pool of cells that everything came from. But there was a LUCA of some way, shape, and form.
We’ve landed on how many comets? And it’s been how many hundreds of millions of years since the LUCA on earth? And we should find that exact same thing on a comet, despite all that time, if it even came from one in the first place?
I don’t think so. After all, free oxygen molecules don’t really exist without something to keep manufacturing them (such as chlorophyll) because of how reactive they are. Since non-biological processes don’t release free O2, it would all have been tied up and reacted until biological processes freed it. And since oxygen is an oxidizer to pretty much everything except F (which is IIRC about the only thing that can steal electrons from O), if allllllllllllll the oxygen in the world was in compounds, compared to today it WOULD be more oxidized.
Forgive me, but I’m not sure I quite see how this question fits. Would you please elaborate what is making you ask it?
But he never said it wasn’t real. *facepalm* According to scientific theory, there is one. What exactly it was, we don’t know.
Metherion
So, is the issue in the OP done?
I have some other issues to talk about.
Then do so. Explain exactly why we have all those transition fossils, have similar genome's with other animal species, explain distant star light, the chalk cliffs of Dover, the Great Barrier Reef, radioactive dating, evidence of civilization in 10,000 B.C. and Atavisms 
Linear Mode
