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.
And yet ‘abiogenesis’ is the name for the study of biological origins.No it doesn't:
“I, for one, have never subscribed to this view of the origin of life, and I am by no means alone. The RNA world hypothesis is driven almost entirely by the flow of data from very high technology combinatorial libraries, whose relationship to the prebiotic world is anything but worthy of “unanimous support”. There are several serious problems associated with it, and I view it as little more than a popular fantasy” (reviewer's report in Primordial soup or vinaigrette: did the RNA world evolve at acidic pH? Biol Direct. 2012).Abiogenesis is little more the a popular fantasy.
Sure no problem, it's a chicken and egg problem, was it proteins or RNA.And yet ‘abiogenesis’ is the name for the study of biological origins.
Which was my point.
But, thanks for posting the opinion of some guy, though: really made me think.
They would be wrong on the science because they refuse to believe God created everything.You must then conclude that Collin's and the many thousands of educated Phd level scientists that agree with his conclusion on how strong the evidence is, are either wrong on the science, or they have some motivation to mislead people.
If your conclusion is Collins and everyone else is simply wrong, why would anyone be convinced with you disagreeing with them?
Francis Collins would agree that God created everything, creating life over the space of six days 6000 years ago, not so much.They would be wrong on the science because they refuse to believe God created everything.
They would be wrong on the science because they refuse to believe God created everything.
-_- both form naturally, so there is no reason that they couldn't have formed at the same time. However, RNA can act both as a gene AND as an enzyme, so it can do the work of both by itself, so there isn't a "chicken and egg" problem here at all.Sure no problem, it's a chicken and egg problem, was it proteins or RNA.
Funny that's not what I'm getting from the research. RNA transposes into proteins, which become the molecular mechanisms that produce proteins. Proteins never produce RNA but RNA produce proteins. It seems like a no brainer but what produces the RNA in the first place, in a primordial sea, that is cooking like a cauldron.-_- both form naturally, so there is no reason that they couldn't have formed at the same time. However, RNA can act both as a gene AND as an enzyme, so it can do the work of both by itself, so there isn't a "chicken and egg" problem here at all.
Which is nothing to do with my point about ToE and Abiogenesis being two different things.Sure no problem, it's a chicken and egg problem, was it proteins or RNA.
That wasn't changing the subject it was following the conversation, and the protein/RNA first question is big in the RNA world hypothesis. Don't you guy ever research this stuff?Which is nothing to do with my point about ToE and Abiogenesis being two different things.
But thanks for trying to change the subject.
The only thing I posted about was ToE and Abiogenesis.That wasn't changing the subject it was following the conversation, and the protein/RNA first question is big in the RNA world hypothesis. Don't you guy ever research this stuff?
I didn't think I needed to, what interests me is the actual scientific literature but try to get a conversation going on that is like pulling teeth.The only thing I posted about was ToE and Abiogenesis.
If that does not interest you, you need not have replied to me.
Oh I heard about that, it will just laugh in the middle of the night. Trippy, probably the work of a bored programmer.Abiogenesis, life from nonliving organic matter. Sounds kind of like an oxymoron.
I think if this would have been a viable theory scientists would have produced life by now from nonliving organic matter. You would think with today's supercomputers that they could have figured out how to do this if it were possible.
Maybe they should ask Alexa.
Scientist: Alexa how do I create life from nonliving organic matter?
Alexa: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Maybe they did ask Alexa.
Alexa is laughing at users and creeping them out
Certainly the Bible is telling the truth. There could be some symbolism. Is it really that big of a deal?If you study evolution, with an open mind, you will likely believe in evolution.
If you study human, animal, and plant anatomy, with an open mind, you will likely believe in creation.
-_- RNA and proteins form naturally. They can catalyze the reactions pertaining to their formation, making them form faster and in larger quantities. Most of the basic cell reactions are ones that can occur naturally, but not as fast as they do within cells filled to the brim with RNA and protein enzymes that catalyze the reactions.Funny that's not what I'm getting from the research. RNA transposes into proteins, which become the molecular mechanisms that produce proteins. Proteins never produce RNA but RNA produce proteins. It seems like a no brainer but what produces the RNA in the first place, in a primordial sea, that is cooking like a cauldron.
Pull someone else’s teeth.I didn't think I needed to, what interests me is the actual scientific literature but try to get a conversation going on that is like pulling teeth.
I didn't think I needed to, what interests me is the actual scientific literature but try to get a conversation going on that is like pulling teeth.
It is, if you have constructed your theology on a literal and inerrant Genesis.Certainly the Bible is telling the truth. There could be some symbolism. Is it really that big of a deal?
How? Did the animal just decide to modify its DNA?
As for abiogenesis. Life arising from nonliving matter.
If this could work, scientists would have been able to produce life.