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.
ok, but why actually?
so this is also a stepwise way from a car into a space shuttle: a car, a jet fighter, a space shuttle.
But of course xianghua's predictable response will be, "well, let's pretend that we have a car that is made of organic components and can reproduce..."
And round and round this thread goes in an endless circle of ridiculous logic, monstrous reproducing fantasy cars, and utter insanity.
What are you talking about? Water, for example, is the most common compound in the entire universe. None of the elements that make up the majority of our bodies are rare in the slightest. There is no reason to assume that elsewhere, on a similar planet to our own, similar life couldn't form.Other than life on earth, no "matter" or chemicals have properties conducive to life.
-_- are you seriously unaware that there are molecules that replicate other than DNA? For example, prions are proteins that replicate in that other proteins that come into contact with them almost always adopt the prion conformation, thus becoming another prion. And proteins do form naturally quite easily.Chemicals or minerals have no interest in self replicating
or any of that difficult stuff.
-_- chemicals have no emotions, desires, or interests. Stop personifying these things.They just site there and degrade just as they desire to.
And proteins do form naturally quite easily.
As well as from non-living sources in a variety of environments, as has been conclusively displayed by over 50 years of abiogenesis experiments. Proteins are some of the first life-relevant molecules to form in those entirely sterile, lifeless environments.They already come from living sources.
-_- I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that. Sure, nothing makes life predestined to form as far as we are aware, but nothing chemically prevents it from being possible.No law of nature or chemistry points toward life.
Researchers have produced polypetides by impacting ice laced with amino acids at high velocities to simulate delivery of organics by comets. However, none of these were as long chained as a protein.I am not sure that abiogenesis experiments produce proteins. What I have seen are precursors and then reasonable routes to RNA, etc.
The Miller–Urey experiment produced amino acids.
Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a cyanosulfidic protometabolism
Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions
Maybe the reactions from amino acids to proteins are too slow to reasonably replicate in labs.
they are actually very relevant. even you cant change a car stepwise into a space shuttle. right?I think you should take a basic Biology 101 course and learn the difference between living and non-living things. You still appear confused about that.
Cars and space shuttles are completely irrelevant to this discussion.
And yes, the similarities in our DNA points to common ancestry, similar DNA similar shape, genotype, phenotype. Lungs, two eyes, symmetry, head on the front of the body...
ID and evolution both predict common similarities. What you need is something ID predicts and evolution does not.but common similarity can be also evidence for a common designer. right? we can see it a lot in cars- many cars are very similar because of the same designer- human.
Answered hundreds of times. See https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-self-replicating-watch-argument.8005539/they are actually very relevant. even you cant change a car stepwise into a space shuttle. right?
Oh, and it would also help if you had a proposed mechanism for the introduction of "design" into biological entities. Criticizing evolution's mechanism isn't enough.but common similarity can be also evidence for a common designer. right? we can see it a lot in cars- many cars are very similar because of the same designer- human.
10 July 2018 xianghua: Ignorance that cars and space shuttles are relevant to a thread about evolution.they are actually very relevant.
Evidence that the designer exists comes first.but common similarity can be also evidence for a common designer. right?
Wrong. Similarities are not evidence of design and therefore are not evidence of a designer.but common similarity can be also evidence for a common designer. right?
But the similarities are not what lead us to infer design.we can see it a lot in cars- many cars are very similar because of the same designer- human.
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?