Evolution? How?

real life wrote:

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?

No. The scientific standard is that some form of replicative molecule formed from the chemical soup prior to the existence of the cell.

Ok. Now take it from there.

0 Replies

Darwins house to get World Heritage nomination:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article338329.ece

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Your position is that you think we think that DNA generated spontaneously from raw chemicals. That is not the case. We think that DNA generated from raw chemicals after being exposed to certain environmental stimulus.

And those "environmental stimuli" were probably quite complex by the time DNA came about. There were simpler forms of DNA (such as forms of RNA) before modern DNA evolved.

And before RNA there were even simpler xNA's.

The starting point must have been simple replication in some form. Farmerman and Stuh have suggested a few in the other thread. But there might be many more.

If we can make a good argument for starting point replication from the chemicals of the time, and since we know things ended up as DNA, we can work in both directions to figure out the steps in between (by proposing various stages and then testing the hypothesis). And I believe that this is exactly the scientific process which is going on.

If creationists have a problem with any of this, then I would guess that they need to object to the very beginning of the process, not the middle.

0 Replies

I'd just like to know what the heck those organic molecules were that the Ames Research Center produced. I can't for the life of me find John Gribbin's reference, because the book I quoted from was a free sample version I got from Focus Magazine UK.

0 Replies

Some aspects of the universe that are currently unknown may someday become known depending on advances in science. However, are there aspects that scientists would consider unknowable (can never be known)?

0 Replies

wande-

I have heard that they are at a loss to explain how Shakespeare's Complete Works could appear out of the primeval soup when the aforesaid soup had all that time in which to produce many millions,if not billions,of such things.

Has anyone explained that to you satisfactorily.Or Mozart for that matter.

0 Replies

Idiocy is no respecter of persons.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

I'd just like to know what the heck those organic molecules were that the Ames Research Center produced. I can't for the life of me find John Gribbin's reference, because the book I quoted from was a free sample version I got from Focus Magazine UK.

There is another thread here, in which Stuh505 and Farmerman have provided suggestions on early replication. Perhaps some of what you're looking for is listed there.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Some aspects of the universe that are currently unknown may someday become known depending on advances in science. However, are there aspects that scientists would consider unknowable (can never be known)?

Also we need to remember (for clarity in these types of discussions), that what scientists consider "knowable" and what creationists consider "knowable" are two different things.

Science uses the "beyond reasonable doubt" definition of "known", and creationists tend to use the "beyond any doubt" definition.

0 Replies

Quote:

Idiocy is no respecter of persons.

Would someone be kind enough to explain the presence of the above pointless and meaningless statement on this thread.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Idiocy is no respecter of persons.

Would someone be kind enough to explain the presence of the above pointless and meaningless statement on this thread.

Well I will and i find it offensive...

someone has substituted God's name for the word idiocy...

The scripture should read...

Ac 10:34
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Comment:
This scripture is actually the foundations of why we today cherish equality so dearly... I find it offensive that someone needs to be so base and actually prejudicial, insensitive to name only a few...

0 Replies

Looking back I noticed it was you Set who made that statement I do not consider you worthy those insults but I consider that statement worthy of them...

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Comment:
This scripture is actually the foundations of why we today cherish equality so dearly.

Your use of the term "we" is a little too broad here, because the scripture is not why "I" cherish equality so dearly. My motivations derive from compassion and empathy, not scripture.

0 Replies

Set,

Is this your motto in life?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created idiots, that they are endowed by their idiot with certain unalienable idiosyncracies, that among these are idiocy, idiocy and the pursuit of idiocy.- (sarcasm)

God is: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... just in case you had the words mixed up in this phrase... Smile

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Comment:
This scripture is actually the foundations of why we today cherish equality so dearly.

Your use of the term "we" is a little too broad here, because the scripture is not why "I" cherish equality so dearly. My motivations derive from compassion and empathy, not scripture.

YOU don't cherish equality?

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

God is: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

How do you figure that?

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

YOU don't cherish equality?

Of course I do. I just don't do it because the scripture tells me to do it. I have other motivations (as noted earlier).

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Set,

Is this your motto in life?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created idiots, that they are endowed by their idiot with certain unalienable idiosyncracies, that among these are idiocy, idiocy and the pursuit of idiocy.- (sarcasm)

God is: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... just in case you had the words mixed up in this phrase...

No, that is not my "motto" in life. I have no motto. Using quotes in place of thought is the primrose path to idiocy.

Your contention about your imaginary friend being responsible for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is without foundation.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Set,

Is this your motto in life?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created idiots, that they are endowed by their idiot with certain unalienable idiosyncracies, that among these are idiocy, idiocy and the pursuit of idiocy.- (sarcasm)

God is: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... just in case you had the words mixed up in this phrase...

No, that is not my "motto" in life. I have no motto. Using quotes in place of thought is the primrose path to idiocy.

Your contention about your imaginary friend being responsible for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is without foundation.

If my friend is imaginary then that may very well make me the idiot... But if it is real, as we are, this earth, life etc... then that makes you the loser doesn't it...

I would rather be an idiot than a loser... either way you lose... that make me rather smart actually...

0 Replies

I have not contended that you are an idiot. People who are not idiots traffic in idiocy every day. Neither am i a loser--not only is nothing gained if nothing is ventured, nothing is lost, either. In the "god" lottery, i'm not betting one red cent.

Without claiming you are an idiot--i have seen no evidence at this site to support a contention that you are "rather smart." Most of what you write here is so opaque as to give no idea at all of your relative intelligence.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know