Evolution? How?

what are you getting at with DNA'zymes timber?

It's no more unlikely than salt finding its way into sea foam. We're talking about oceans of chemicals sloshing around in all kinds of conditions.



I covered this already. Random changes in the xNA which led to any improvement in the abilit to stabilize the protection, no matter how small, would have had a higher probability of replication (passing on the encoded changes).

And that's just one possible scenario. Many times the structures we see in life forms were not originally required by their predecessors, but evolved into a required structure as the organism changed over time.

We could go on and on with possibilities here. But so far you haven't proven that any of this is impossible, or even improbable. Meanwhile Timber and others have been providing real testable chemical evidence which are offering more and more possibilities.

real life as quoted by ros
Too much football yesterday to sit in on this, but real life, perhaps youre making the "cell wall" sound like a sine qua non of the organization of life. Not so. The erliest fossils were of algae similar to present day euglena. This is a life form still without a cell wall. Instead the glycoproteins merely fold at the cells surficial interface with its environment. This (we think) was the first morphological adaptation that led to flagella and cilia.
The glycoproteins (similarly a stacked polymer of PNA's with an interfacial structure similar to claycrystals) gave rise to cell walls from multilayers of glycoproteins and polysaccharides (plants contain cellulose also). . So we dont get off on the wonders of Dna and all the perturbations of life we see today.
Remember the simplest life forms wereprobably self assembled of RNA (which is self catalyzing) and glycoproteins. When the "protogenome" got too big for encoding (RNA has a coding ceiling of about 30K) it needed a following spurt of assembly , Hence the methylation reactions gave rise to Chiral mega RNA's and (remember that the DNA 'zymes, that Timber spoke of re only seen in labs , not in nature) , but theres no reason that they couldnt have arisen from a creative methylation process to string these boys together and force chirality (mirror imaging)

wEVE GOTTA TAKE THE STEPS one at a time and not try to "force fit" things that maybe took a half billion years of trial to come up with.

More to the point of ribozymes as precursors of DNA - they're very much simpler structures, pretty much assemble themselves, more or less replicate spontaneously, and even sorta compete. Put that together with the attributes of silicates, add some time, and here we are. I guess in a sense I figure we did "come from clay" - just not the way the Creationists/ID-iots would like to think we did. I figure the first steps were pretty much a sorta amorphous slime oozing and spreading around on damp dirt - mebbe even under water, near volcanic vents, or under the land surface, in cracks and crevices ... who knows where, but the multitude of plausible possibilities is intriguing. First chemistry and environment, then molecular bonding, catalysis, amino acids, polymerization, lipids, and the race was on. Once something like that got started, it seems to me it would cook along just fine, getting more and more complex and diverse as it developed. What worked went on to work some more, what didn't work went away; positive feedback amplifying the development pace.

you know of course that they dont (or havent been found ) in nature.i agree that Theyre a good model, , I didnt know whethre you were carrying it further than we could support (so RL doest cry gotcha). I really like your post where it reported the interspatial distance(0.34A) between the PNAs were the same as the lines of base pairs in DNA, thats pretty much a self assembly issue and it hadda come from some previous structural (P chem issue) . I hadda go track some more stuff down for my notes.I then found that The insterspatial distances for hydrated phylosilicates (clays) called smectites (which are great surface reaction species) is also , guess what?

So this could well refer back to the speculation of which i read in Scientific American thirty years ago or more which suggested self-replicating molecules found haven in clays, and were possibly being promoted in forming long chains by the reactions to the clays in which thery were sheltering? (sheltering in a not intentional sense, only by default--i don't 'splain that science stuff so well)

yeh , they were using the idea that clays were so damn handy for initiating reactions and adsorption/desorption that they hadda be important to organic molecules and life.
The interesting thing is that the very first post Hadean sedimentary rock unit that showed life traces (from carbon isotope data) was a marine clay called montmorillonite, which is a great "grabber" for sorption (surface reactions).
Ill have to think up a good exhibit for this in the Keration Mewzeeum

William Blake already did it.And the monks of the cold medieval monastries as well.

Can't you see a resemblence between a Gothic spire,the Venus of Willendorf and the eyes in the iron head glowing.

Thus spake Urizen.

PS, I always thought that the nebula they call "the eye of God' (found by Hubble telescope) should have, instead been called the Ancient of Days nebula , after Blakespicture of the old man starting things up. Google up "Ancient of Days by William Blake"
BTW, while were at images, what does the following have to do with what we were talking about

Would this be like a hermit crab looking for a shell?

Grossly oversimplified, but no an inapt metaphor. However, the crab is consciously looking for a refuge, and replicating molecules simply benefit if one is to hand . . .

Excellent FM

FM

Isn't the Bible right that about 6000 years ago humans developed some sort of sensibility around their sexuality.

Examples the two Venus' show a shift of one being sexually uninhibited and the Greek Venus hiding her genitalia...

Doesn't that support the Adam and Eve story of them discovering their nakedness and ushering in an age of reason over instinct?

The Bible seems to come up right in many instances...

Maybe the emphasis is not on the earth being created in seven literal days but that human minds were enlightened within a seven day period that basically changed the world... They put on clothes...

Just like the hermit crab...

Your statements are completely without foundation. You continue to display a tendancy to clutter this thread with fanciful irrelevancies.

Well you are entitled to your narrow minded opinion but, I DISAGREE...

Anything that vindicated God and the Bible... I think you are biased and prejudiced...

You provided nothing which "vindicated god and the bible" . . . your remarks about "Venuses" are falsities (and there was no Greek "Venus," but they did have Aphrodite, who never did anything to hide her charms). You're just making sh!t up . . .

Set

We see a period where human art is uninhibited by sexuality then we see a period where it is inhibited by sexuality then we have a story that dates back to the exact time in question that tells of two humans discovering their nakedness. Do you have a better historical story that dates back to antiquities that explains why we went from uninhibited sexuality cults in France, China, India etc... that were then replaced by sexually inhibited cults...

Whether you want to put on blinds and pin the tail on the donkey I choose to take off the blinds and look at the whole picture before I go sticking pins anywhere...

Your own bias and prejudice keeps you in the dark...

Every single Biblical statement has had to withstand the most harsh criticism to stand on it's own... By people like you who have an axe to grind...

But you have been proven wrong so many times by the Bible that I would think that over so many years that you would finally cease your rant...

Like Babylon... people of your ilk insisted that Babylon was a myth!

The Bible withstood so much criticism because of it's mention of Babylon...

The science men of the day were sure Babylon never existed and was as imaginary as the flood is considered today..

So no serious archaeology inquiries were made into where the Bible said Babylon existed..

The science community thought the Greek Atlantis was the city to put their money (red cents) on... So many books were written about how Atlantis had to exist... why? Because it was the Greeks who mentioned it of course!

But Babylon? Only a "myth"! Because, only the Bible mentions it...

So the Bible withstood so much damage of it's credibility by people like you, Set, who thought they knew what they were talking about.. They were sure the Bible made up Babylon... they as you are, were simply wrong...

And Christians had to endure their daily attacks on the Bible because it mentioned a city (Babylon) that they (critics) were SURE was mythical.

But Atlantis on the other hand had to exist... after all it was conceived by the same people that brought us three headed lizards and ladies with snakes in their hair... Oh yea and we can't forget the one eyed giant cyclops (need I go on?)... So Atlantis must exist...

So no official search for Babylon was made though people were searching the globe tediously for Atlantis... So much for the hypocritic oath...

Babylon sat in the desert of modern day Iraq and it took the Iraqis selling ancient tablets of stone from some mound in the desert to tourists until scientists looked at the tablets and realized they were actually from Babylon...

What an embarrassment... they basically had to have Babylon slap them in the face with stone to wake them up!...

And I feel for the Christians who believed in the Bible and had to endure the dirty attacks from the God rejectors of the day...

Science has lost most of it's credibility when handling the Bible... and so have you Set...

Go find your Atlantis...

It would seem that the change came when ancient tribes went from a sort of pagan frenzied religious ceremony that included nakedness and unbridled sexuality to a consciousness of a God that is "observing" and desires a more modest way of life...

Atlantis has nothing to do with me.

You marshall an army of strawmen, make up more nonsense about prehistoric man, and declare yourself the winner. But there was never any contest--the rest of us don't inhabit your fantasy world.

Once again, you burden this thread with no germane comments, just your "intellectual" masturbation . . .