I conclude evolution is guided (page 47)

Landy

Uhhh evolution is a theory my dear. NOT a hypothesis but nice effort.

She didn't say it was s hypothesis. Interesting debate style you have there.

Hadriel

@Landy then why bring up hypotheses? Evolution is a theory.

You categorically cannot prove/disprove Evolution/Creation until you can define how RNA became DNA. How those amino acids became charge which began the proto-chaining of life.

Creationists want to stick to well how else could it have happened.

Evolutionists want to ignore this charge/event that began life.

Everyone would do well to not talk semantics and get to the core issue. What the hell was the catalyst. If you don't want to discuss this I'm out. This is the topic to debate not all this ancilary crap as it means zero without knowing what charged those amino acids so long ago.

Remember....closing your mind means you've stopped looking for the answers!

cofty

How those amino acids became charge which began the proto-chaining of life.

Please explain this strange sentence.

What do you mean when you say "amino acids became charge"?

What is "proto-chaining"? Nobody can answer a question until you frame it in language that makes sense.

I told you already that the transition from an RNA world to DNA is the least difficult question in the study of the origin of life. I can think of much more challenging problems. I think you misread something somewhere that you thought you understood and now you are no longer sure what your question is?

cofty

You categorically cannot prove/disprove Evolution/Creation until you can define how RNA became DNA.

That is nonsense.

All three great kingdoms of life descended from the Last Universal Common Ancestor - LUCA.

How that happened is very well understood and beyond all sensible doubt. How geochemistry became biochemistry is a different subject and one in which very exciting progress is being made.

Landy

@Landy then why bring up hypotheses? Evolution is a theory.

I don't know - you brought hypothesis up. You just called it 'building a theory'.

The upshot is that yes, there are things science doesn't yet know. Whether we're talking about this particular bee in your bonnet or one of the many other areas of research. There will be things science doesn't fully understand for a long long time yet.

What you can't do. What is totally outside the realms of scientifc endeavour is attribute anything you don't understand to a God. So yes, scientists can and must close their minds to the existence of a god.

Whether God exists or not is (and you have alluded to this in that Berkeley snippit but I don't think you grasped its meaning) totally and absolutely irrelevant when it comes to science. Scientific explanation always has to stand on its own two feet and not accept that tinkering from God had any influence on natural phenonenom.

And so far they're doing a pretty good job.

Hadriel

@Landy maybe I'm not being clear but I completely agree with your statements.

I'm actually saying you CANNOT assume God just because we are unaware of this charge/event that sprung life into motion.

The problem is that you cannot assume Evolution either for the very same reason.

@cofty I have no issue with LUCA zero. However you're leaving out an important part which the hard and fast types like to do it seems....how the hell did you get to the first universal ancestor?

Honestly I don't get the hostility...if you can prove how RNA became DNA how amino acids were charged beginning the chaining of life you'll get a Nobel Price if you can't you MUST accept other possibilities and that is really all I'm saying.

To be very clear I'm not saying either are right. i think we need more questions answered. I suspect some day when it is all solved we'll find there's something involved that no one thought of before. Usually works that way in the end. Meaning the answer might be right in front of everyone.

OrphanCrow

hadriel: ...if you can prove how RNA became DNA how amino acids were charged beginning the chaining of life you'll get a Nobel Price if you can't you MUST accept other possibilities and that is really all I'm saying.

Can you please define what you mean by "other possibilities"? I don't really understand your statement

Saying "...you MUST accept other possibilities" leads me to assume that you mean that if someone cannot offer an explanation scientifically for how RNA became DNA...then the only recourse they have is to accept this undetermined "other".

That makes no sense. Science does not work like that

Landy

The problem is that you cannot assume Evolution either for the very same reason.

Yes you can. Evolution is the accepted status quo. All advancements are refinements to the theory.

Hadriel

@OrphanCrow many theories just like this one are ultimately proven wrong. Of this entire discussion this much is absolute FACT cannot be disputed.

As such indeterminate possibilities yet to be fleshed out are certainly on the table. Science is the pursuit of knowledge by study and experimental tests related to those studies.

So if there are no indeterminate possibilities what the heck are you testing?

To not consider "other" or the unknown is to fall into the trap discussed in this article.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/17/scientific-studies-wrong

Crabby

God is real and I will tell you how one can know this. The main attribute of God is that he brought life to the Earth, sure there are others but this is the main thing. The human race is about to take life to another planet, Mars. On the day that an astronaut first steps on the Mars soil, God is proven as another lifeless planet is about to be colonized and habituated. So God is Knowledge, that can take you anywhere you choose to go.

Have Faith, and study for the World is not about to end, but grow exponentially.

I conclude evolution is guided

Share this