Evolution? How?

First, a molecule as large and complex as DNA is unlikely to have developed and remained intact without the protection of the cell membrane and the support of the rest of the cell.

If DNA developed first, before the cell, how did the DNA contain the correct code for a cell and sub-cellular structures that had never yet existed[/u]? Where did the information come from?

Was it just luck that on the first try the DNA developed all[/u] of the instructions for a successful cell including the construction of complex, interdependent sub-cellular components, the feeding of the cell, waste disposal, protection for the cell including instructions for a semi-permeable membrane, and instructions for reproduction?

If the DNA didn't produce the instructions for all of these functions successfully on the first try, the likely result would be death and the end of the cellular line. Did the DNA survive this demise to 'try again' until it succeeded? If a cell dies today, does the DNA just 'keep on truckin' ?

How many times did a DNA molecule have to form spontaneously of its own accord until one was formed that DID have all of the instructions correct , so that it would insure the survival and successful replication of the cell?

Do we see DNA generating spontaneously today?

If simpler molecules that became part of the cell existed first, did the DNA contain the code for them? If not, when the cell reproduced are these molecules carrying on their own program independent of, and unaffected by the DNA?

real life wrote:

First, a molecule as large and complex as DNA is unlikely to have developed and remained intact without the protection of the cell membrane and the support of the rest of the cell.

You don't seem to grasp the idea of things starting out less complex and evolving due to selection.

Obviously DNA didn't pop out of nowhere either, it's too complex. However, Farmerman and Stuh have both given examples of other structures which arise naturally and have replicatable capacity.

Why do you always complain about particular items which aren't relevant to the underlying point of what we are discussing?

real life wrote:

If DNA developed first, before the cell, how did the DNA contain the correct code for a cell and sub-cellular structures that had never yet existed[/u]? Where did the information come from?

Was it just luck that on the first try the DNA developed all[/u] of the instructions for a successful cell including the construction of complex, interdependent sub-cellular components, the feeding of the cell, waste disposal, protection for the cell including instructions for a semi-permeable membrane, and instructions for reproduction?

If the DNA didn't produce the instructions for all of these functions successfully on the first try, the likely result would be death and the end of the cellular line. Did the DNA survive this demise to 'try again' until it succeeded? If a cell dies today, does the DNA just 'keep on truckin' ?

How many times did a DNA molecule have to form spontaneously of its own accord until one was formed that DID have all of the instructions correct , so that it would insure the survival and successful replication of the cell?

Do we see DNA generating spontaneously today?

If simpler molecules that became part of the cell existed first, did the DNA contain the code for them? If not, when the cell reproduced are these molecules carrying on their own program independent of, and unaffected by the DNA?

It's interesting. You arguments in this case are almost the opposite of Irreducible Complexity. You are basically arguing Insurmountable Complexity.

Unfortunately for you, your theory so far looks like an army of straw men all lined up ready us to burn.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

First, a molecule as large and complex as DNA is unlikely to have developed and remained intact without the protection of the cell membrane and the support of the rest of the cell.

You don't seem to grasp the idea of things starting out less complex and evolving due to selection.

So you are assuming evolution in order to logically prove evolution, right?

rosborne979 wrote:

Obviously DNA didn't pop out of nowhere either, it's too complex. However, Farmerman and Stuh have both given examples of other structures which arise naturally and have replicatable capacity.

Isn't that exactly what you require DNA to do -- form itself from raw chemicals, PRIOR to the existence of the cell? That was your position, right?

DNA did not need the protection or the support of a cell to generate itself, protect itself from chemical annihalation and encode all of the information needed to build a cell, nourish a cell, protect a cell and reproduce a cell. Then it somehow had to not only build itself but also transition from self building to the actual construction of the cell that it carried the information for.

Once formed, it must be successful at these tasks or face death and the end of the cellular line. Then we have to start over again , DNA making itself from chemical soup.

Evolutionists propose that this whole process took a relatively short time (less than 750 million years from the genesis of the planet as a hot molten body thru the 'cooling off' period and to the first life), right?

How many times do you propose that DNA generated itself before it was successful at building, nourishing , maintaining and reproducing a cellular line that had all of the characteristics needed to survive and thrive?

rosborne979 wrote:

Why do you always complain about particular items which aren't relevant to the underlying point of what we are discussing?

Are you seriously suggesting that this is not a relevant topic? ( Is this how a scientist pursuing the truth always sounds -- 'why do you ask that question? It is not important! ' )

So you are assuming evolution in order to logically prove evolution, right?

Are you seriously suggesting that this is not a relevant topic? ( Is this how a scientist pursuing the truth always sounds -- 'why do you ask that question? It is not important! ' )

No one seems to even want to comment either way on my plant "theory"... hehe (little shop of horrors).

I always think it's kinda funny how dozens of brilliant minds get together, spend millions of dollars and countless hours of careful planning and lots of hard work and overtime to accomplish something they can then claim didn't require intelligent design. [Wink]

Show why it's so, instead of just saying so.

I always think it's kinda funny how dozens of brilliant minds get together, spend millions of dollars and countless hours of careful planning and lots of hard work and overtime to accomplish something they can then claim didn't require intelligent design. :wink:

real life,

Perhaps the time has come to reveal your theory?

You've spent an lot of time (a LOT of time) trying to throw doubt on the currently accepted theory (without success obviously) but very little time outlining your own.

Surely it's time to "put up or shut up" ?

No one seems to even want to comment either way on my plant "theory"... hehe (little shop of horrors)

I think that it seems more logical that animal cells were made by plants... and plant cells made by some sort of volcanic undersea phenomenon...

I think one of the most intriguing questions to myself is how small can you shrink biology and retain the same complexity... Like big dogs and little tiny dogs... can a dog become smaller than a thimble?

Have humans every been smaller than a thimble?

Can the essence of what it is to be human be carried along by biology for millions of years until it reaches the physical form it needs to fully function?

DNA could have come from a comet, it could have been created in the plasma fires of sun, It could have been scripted by a volcanic plume, It could have been made by rocks in a fresh water puddle of ooze, It could have been planted by some alien ancestor, It could have been burped out of a plant, creatures long extinct may have had the diversity and ability to make such variety of cell structures. The last possible consideration to science sometimes, there may be an ultimate observer that has engraved the sequence of life upon the soul...

This ultimate observer's range can simple be the boundaries variety and influence of the sphere of the earth and physical universe that we occupy, to an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent "being"...

Evolution cannot "yet" answer where the first cells were really crafted because there are several plausible possibilities... Even if they knew who or what crafted cells they would still have to answer where the physical chemical world came from i.e. the sun and cosmos and before the big bang...

real life wrote:

Show why it's so, instead of just saying so.

Strawman strawman strawman. What part of that don't you get?

Every basis of your argument is based on invalid assumptions. Nobody is going to waste their time answering questions based on assumptions which are invalid to start with.

If you really don't understand why I object to your assertions, then please start with one item at a time and I'll tear it down and explain it to you, but please don't bundle crap within crap and throw it at me and then ask why I duck.

Hi Ros,

Alright we'll take it slow.

Your position is that DNA formed itself from a chemical soup prior to the existence of the cell, correct?

Specifically regarding DNA, has anyone ever seen DNA generated spontaneously from raw chemicals?