Al Touthentop
Well-Known Member
- Nov 24, 2019
- 2,940
- 888
- 62
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Divorced
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
I'm not familiar with that one. I was thinking more in terms of, say, the theory of relativity. To be considered a scientific theory, a proposition has be be relatively well evidenced. I don't think that's true of your DNA idea.
The authors of the (Berkley) study were at least dealing with one of the glaring holes in the theory. Mainly, an advanced cryptological system (DNA/RNA) is required first before life can exist. Now they claim that DNA/RNA - "are simply nucleotide proteins" whistling past the fact that they are in fact coded instructions no matter how "simple" their biological make up is and that in each organism the code is so complex that it contains the instructions for creating every cell and organ in its body. The DNA inside a liver cell, won't cause the liver to produce a skin cell or a kidney cell. Even a single celled organism is incredibly complex. It eats, poops and reproduces and all of the information which allows it to do so is driven by the DNA.
So they came up with the idea that the DNA came first (it has to) and that it rained down from the clouds into the ocean and thus the first organisms were created. It isn't possible for evolution to have produced DNA. It requires a designer.
Upvote
0