Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I won't speak for anyone other than myself, but I'm here to have conversations. I want to start a dialogue, understand the perspectives of other people who think differently to me.
With specific regard to the current conversation, yes: evolution is entirely separate from atheism or theism. Both atheist and theist scientists accept it, and if I can explain it to people who don't understand it properly, all the better! Also, if someone challenges my understanding of evolution, that's interesting. So for that reason I'm in this specific forum, right now. I'm not out to recruit to atheism, I'm out to explain science. SCIENCE.
I've not mentioned atheism since my intro post.
Put shortly, the "watery" environment of the young earth was drastically different from the watery environment of modern earth. It's uncertain the results of mass action would have been abrogative to the formation of stable RNA/peptide precursors. But this is an area of ongoing study in science: P
I thought we were talking about evolution, which is much more interesting because we know lots about it. :
Sure. Endothermic reactions: chemical reactions that have a positive Gibbs energy value; they need heat to be input to work.
Also FYI, the first *meaningful* biomolecules, in terms of what we recognise as life, were likely RNA, not DNA.
Like I said, this is an area of ongoing study in science. It's hard to say much for sure. The chemical environment at that time is hard to predict and so what we know about chemical interactions under modern conditions is hard to extrapolate. Work continues. : D
Nope. Catalaysis of D-isomer polymerisation would result in a right-handed DNA strand, regardless of the starting mixture. The catalyst is, by virtue of its selectivity, likely a semi-complex biomolecule. How did that appear? Nobody knows yet.
None of this has anything to do with evolution, I'm not a specialist and it's a muggy area of research. Strike me all you want : P
From the mysterious chirality problem you pose, I assume that your argument is "you can't explain any of this therefore I'm right". The case is more that the inorganic origin of life is a current research topic: there is a lot we don't know and that is why scientists have jobs. Until then, neither of us can really say anything about it. It is a boring topic of conversation.
Attacking ToE does not prove creationism right. The science of abiogenesis is still an ongoing process. Science does not claim to know how life began. Perhaps you can give us your evidence of how life began by using your ID (a.k.a creationism) explanation? Just quoting the Bible is not sufficient evidence as it in no way explains the how.strike two, no complete answer or references.
(RNA world hypothesis is unsupported- you gave no references)
another reason why DNA would not evolve in a primordial or other type of wet environment (soup)...
the miller urey experiment produced 50/50 left and right handed amino acids.
yet
proteins are made of 100% left handed amino acids
on another note:
DNA are made of 100% right handed nucleotides,
so if DNA were to evolve in a soup, it would have to have 100% right handed nucleotides to evolve.
Experiment would fail in a random setting, structures of nucleotides with 1:100 left handed nucleotides would destroy the structure.
learn more about the above see documentation:
the natural sciences know nothing of evolution by A.E. Wilder smith
Attacking ToE does not prove creationism right. The science of abiogenesis is still an ongoing process. Science does not claim to know how life began. Perhaps you can give us your evidence of how life began by using your ID (a.k.a creationism) explanation? Just quoting the Bible is not sufficient evidence as it in no way explains the how.
But answer me first. I think we were really getting somewhere. : D
EDIT: I never posited the RNA world hypthesis. But it's a simple fact that RNAs are almost certainly the earliest biological catalysts, hence me saying they are likely the first meaningful biomolecules. Please do not put words in my mouth.
The cited article addresses modern protein synthesis, which is exactly what we are not talking about. My point stands: as catalytic molecules RNAs were likely among the earliest significant biomolecules. I can make that claim without even mentioning the RNA world hypothesis. I'm not sure what your point is.
You call that a scientific explanation? Tell us who did the intelligent designing and above all How? Is that all you can say about ID (Creationism)? Goddidit is all you have?everything was intelligently designed, not a tree of life but a grass field of life, with everything sprouting it's own shoot of the tree of life. The tree of life as held by darwin is false. That which all common descend is based.
I showed this by revealing my quotes on the cambrian explosion.
You call that a scientific explanation? Tell us who and how did the intelligent designing? Is that all you can say about ID (Creationism)? Goddidit is all you have?
If ID (creationism) were asked to present a paper for peer review do you think that Goddidit will be sufficient?
Let us for argument's sake accept that science has failed miserably and I want information on the who designed and how he designed life; what will you offer to me?
By the way I am an industrial designer (just for the record).
The most reasonable assumption is that life did not start with RNA . The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of experimental data.6
"The flaw is in the logic -- that this experimental control by researchers in a modern laboratory could have been available on the early Earth."
Which is exactly why I didn't posit the RNA world hypothesis.
But RNA is a catalyst.
So it likely played a significant role in early biochemistry.
I struggle to find controversy in that.
redherring, you are changing the subject from abiogenesis which you are fuzzy on.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?