your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
Hadriel I have a proposal for you.
If you are serious about your challenge write out a brief bullet-point list of what you think had to happen stage by stage for life to emerge from chemistry.
Don't copy-paste. You claim to have done a lot of research on this. Just list the steps and which ones you think is most difficult for science to explain.
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
Hadriel almost everything you have written is so muddled it is abundantly clear you do not have the slightest clue about origin of life science.
in very short we're talking about RNA and its condons translating to DNA
I assume you mean codons. RNA in early replicators did not code for DNA. Two simple chemical changes happened - really simple ones - that changed some RNA into DNA. Chemically they are really similar.
LUCA is not contrary to origin of life
I don't know what you mean by that. LUCA is the earliest ancestor of all life. It was already a complex cell that became the ancestor of bacteria, archaea and 2 billion years later eukaryotes. A huge amount of things happened before LUCA existed.
If you can't explain that process you cannot say with anything definitive as to that early bacteria like RNA started chaining and ultimate became DNA.
What do you mean by "bacteria like RNA"? When RNA first formed it was a long time prior to anything we could call bacteria.
Why did you not just say that scientists don't know for sure how chemistry became biology and we would all agree with you and have a productive conversation about the fantastic progress that has been made in recent years?
Instead you spend pages posting self-contradictory statements and using words and phrases that make no sense.
A huge amount is known about the origin of RNA, DNA, proteins, respiration, metabolism and many, many more features of the first cell. I am not going to spend hours describing it to you when you clearly have no interest in the answers and not even a basic understanding of the science. I will recommend a reading list if you like.
let's be clear: people have the right to like or dislike what they want - that is why the option is there.
as long as they are not doing it in a malicious way to retaliate or game the system, there is no policing the votes.
if you get a down-vote, live with it.
I think it's easy to label everything the result of being in the WTS
Yes it is the default explanation/insult/excuse for absolutely everything that happens on ex-JW forums.
Lazy, lazy thinking.
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
Hadriel I have offered to have a discussion with you about the origin of life at least 3 or 4 times. All I ask is that you first define your question/objection.
If you know what the charge is that caused RNA to become DNA again you'll get a Nobel Prize
What do you mean by "the charge"?
I want to know what kicked off those amino acids caused chaining of DNA. I can't be more clear.
Amino acids don't cause chaining of DNA. You really couldn't be less clear.
Do I think we will know what this charge was that began the proto-chaining of life in my lifetime? NO
Again - "charge"? "proto-chaining of life"?
You seem to throw around sciencey words devoid of context.
You have changed your objection at least four times. The worrying thing is that you don't even realise you have changed it which probably makes a useful conversation impossible.
Of course abiogenesis is important. NOBODY is saying otherwise.
However the fact of evolution in no way depends on solving the origin of life. Even it turned out that Jesus made the first cell out of angel farts evolution still stands beyond all reasonable doubt.
You seem to be contradicting yourself about evolution. Contrast and compare...
"I have no issue with LUCA" - This is a firm affirmation of evolution and common ancestry.
"there's no answer hence it frustrates you and your firm belief of Evolution, probably because you don't like hearing that it is only a theory" - This is worthy of Ken Ham
Do you have any idea where you stand at all?
What books that present the scientific evidence FOR evolution and/or the origin of life have you read?
let's be clear: people have the right to like or dislike what they want - that is why the option is there.
as long as they are not doing it in a malicious way to retaliate or game the system, there is no policing the votes.
if you get a down-vote, live with it.
you can change your vote on a post if you made a mistake by clicking the other one instead
I get a red circle with diagonal line icon once I have made a vote.
Edited to add - If I refresh the page I can change a vote
let's be clear: people have the right to like or dislike what they want - that is why the option is there.
as long as they are not doing it in a malicious way to retaliate or game the system, there is no policing the votes.
if you get a down-vote, live with it.
freemindfade - Priceless!
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
Cofty offered to discuss RNA and DNA with you, yet you pretend no one would. Why?^^^ This ^^^
If I understand Prologos correctly he is one of the very few who hold a position that is consistent with science and faith.He makes the minimal claim that a "creator" set the starting conditions that began the process of unguided evolution. It is the same position as scientists such as Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins. I have theological objections to it - regarding suffering for example - but it is not anti-scientific.
let's be clear: people have the right to like or dislike what they want - that is why the option is there.
as long as they are not doing it in a malicious way to retaliate or game the system, there is no policing the votes.
if you get a down-vote, live with it.
sometimes people maybe click the wrong button by mistake - Simon
I just did that with the OP. oops
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
There has been no advancement in the answer to how RNA became DNA. - Hadriel
I gave you the names of three scientists working at the cutting edge of this field and recommended a book that explains it.
You really have zero interest in the answer.
Every time you pose the "question" it changes.
First you rejected the idea of a RNA world
Then you demand to know how RNA could give rise to DNA
Then you insist the real problem has something to do with amino acids being "charged".
Then it's all about what catalyst was involved in connecting amino acids together.
Is it one or all of these that troubles you or is just the origin of life in general?
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
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.
