@Herald,
Quote: neither when , nor why, nor how
I think your ignorance of chemical reactions (without God directing them, ) shows that you are a real dyed in the wool Creationist. Its usual for you to settle upon a argument and then blather on with irrelevancies. As parados correctly stated, you are getting pathetic now.
The chemistry of the "quiet little pond" incolves so many things that apparently you are unaware . Polymerization, REDOX, surface reaction, covalent bonding, neutralization, Peptide linkage etc etc. These are reactions and phenom that occur daily ALL OVER THE PLANET is streams, volcanic vents, boiling springs, caves, etc etc.
Also, science has discovered , on its way to synthesizing DNA (which has been done HERALD), we have the little informational reactions of stuff like Hexitol, threose, or arabinose. Heres an article from a 2 year old Popular Mechanics. (Ida thought your church attack groups could have heard about it and Dr "Dino" is preparing aresponse at the "Creation Museum Research Center" (Im kidding)
(Id put the article from NATURE but I think youd be flummoxed and would draw ESL conclusions from stuff that was written.
Quote: scientists have shown that at least six other types of sugars can form nucleic acid backbones—and they can be used to store and retrieve genetic information. The researchers built DNA molecules from scratch, but replaced the deoxyribose with six other kinds of sugar, including hexitol, threose, and arabinose. The six types of synthetic genetic chains are called XNAs, or xeno-nucleic acids ("xeno" is Greek for "foreign"). And because XNA shows the possibility of heredity—passing down their genetic information—the researchers say these molecules not only could address fascinating questions about the origin of life, but also could open up the possibility of another kind of life based not originally on DNA and RNA.
Jack Szostak, a geneticist and Nobel laureate at Harvard University, tells PM in an email that the work "is very interesting with respect to the origin of life—in principle, many different polymers could serve the roles of RNA and DNA in living organisms. Why then does modern biology use only RNA and DNA?"
How to Make Synthetic DNA
This isn’t the first time that geneticists have cooked up synthetic nucleic acids in a lab. Some scientists had previously created DNA with new kinds of base pairs beyond the A-T and C-G connections in DNA, and others had already created XNAs that incorporate foreign sugars. John Chaput, a molecular biologist at Arizona State University and an author on the new study in Science, says this work asks a new question: "How can you perform Darwinian evolution on something other than DNA or RNA? Lots of DNA and RNA molecules have been evolved in the laboratory, but going the next step and doing it on other molecules has been very challenging. This is one of the first examples of that."
To prove that XNAs could evolve, the researchers first had to create a new kind of enzyme to build the XNAs. Although it’s possible to manufacture XNAs by machine, the resulting nucleic acids are short chains that have limited functionality and evolvability. So instead of using the machinated approach, the researchers took thousands of DNA-building enzymes and evolved them into XNA-building enzymes.
That required taking thousands of enzymes and mixing them together with XNA building blocks, as well as DNA strands that served as templates for the scaffolding on which to build XNA molecules. If an enzyme turned out to be good at building XNA strands, it was captured using a filtering process and amplified it for the next round of testing; enzymes that were bad at making XNA were washed away. Over many rounds of filtering, the enzyme population evolved to become more adroit at building XNAs—in fact, they could produce polymers XNA chains that lasted were five times longer than machine-made XNAs.
"They took enzymes that already existed, and evolved mutants of them that are better at making XNAs," says Floyd Romesberg, a chemist at the Scripps Research Institute, who called the technique "impressive."
Next, the researchers tried to evolve the XNAs themselves. To do so, they used a similar filtering technique. In this case, the scientists selected for XNAs that could bind to a specific protein; XNAs that did not bind to the proteins were washed away. Those that did bind were transcribed back into DNA so that they could be replicated. After replication, the team transcribed the copies back into XNA. In this way, the XNAs that had evolved to bind the protein were able to pass on that talent to a new generation of XNAs.
Basically (if you need to understand it more clearly) The OS is the "reaction cores" of specific compounds and elements. Jut s evolution is adaptation, time , and a little LUCK. These reactions (in various natural environments) occur rather frequently. The sugar bases are nt unique but give us clues to "chain" of reactions over time when our present RNA/DNA was only a thing of the dim future.
Noone knows when RNA/ or DNA ultimately complexed itself. I imagine that it was crafted within an already living CELL WALL, that had evolved a mitochondrial node.
Your computer argument is bogus. Life came along more as a developmet of HOW values are tabulated in living structures (This involves molecular structures, crystallography, and REDOX reaction and polymer chains, among other things)
Nature doesn't know its doing the math, it just uses the basic tools that atoms give it (Like the valence state and the covalent state of elements like CARBON).
Aliphatic compounds can be turned into waxes and esters and so many things just by having them in the presence of reducing or oxidizing environments.
Not knowing WHEN something occurred isn't giving up to a bogus claim that we don't have any ideas WHY or HOW. Your full of it.
Maybe it took 2 + Billion years to derive a really expansive genetic transferal mechanism like RNA , but that doesn't mean that life wasn't present.
Evidence of life abounds in the fossil record (YOU cannot deny that).WHat science is doing is trying to understand now is its possible genetic transfer and how many false starts may have occurred . (SO far the fossil record identified at least two possible false starts of prokaryotes in certain portions of the Australian SHield and Greenland Shield). Such discoveries cry loudly about the ultimate inevitability of life. NOT, as you want us to believe, that its a miraculous occurrence of the handiwork of a Deity on the "Goldilocks Planet".
