The Wonderful World of Animals
- Thread starter Illuminattile
- Start date
untrue.
Amazing how much bullshit I gotta read in this thread. People, if u don't know, don't post!
We are pretty sure these days where the first one single celled organism did come from. Study Stanley Miller work from 1953 - and it's conclusions.....
Anyway, of course, u can still say:"But where did the earth come from?" and of course noone can anwser that, but well, it's possible and logical that a single celled organism can devellop from "nothing". Get the facts.
Amazing how much bullshit I gotta read in this thread. People, if u don't know, don't post!
We are pretty sure these days where the first one single celled organism did come from. Study Stanley Miller work from 1953 - and it's conclusions.....
Anyway, of course, u can still say:"But where did the earth come from?" and of course noone can anwser that, but well, it's possible and logical that a single celled organism can devellop from "nothing". Get the facts.
No I'm not..... we know what the earth looked like before there were any form of life, before there were organic materials on earth. We know how those organic materials developed from anorganic materials. We have a pretty good theory how RNA and later DNA developed and we can imagin these days where the first single celled organism came from. So your statement which I quoted above is just untrue. If u are interested in this topic I gave u a hint, I told u what u have 2 search for (Stanley Miller in 1953).
Peace
P.S: If u change your question a lil bit and ask wher the earth came from, we don't have no anwser.....but we can anwser where the first RNA, DNA and cells came from - that is my point.
Peace
P.S: If u change your question a lil bit and ask wher the earth came from, we don't have no anwser.....but we can anwser where the first RNA, DNA and cells came from - that is my point.
I love 'Wild Life On One!' when I get the chance to see it. It's interesting because animals behave in a similar way to humans, have less complicated minds and are therefore more simple and easy to comprehend. I was thinking last night though: If a man's best friend is a dog, it doesn't say much for humans.
stanley millers theory of a single RNA molecule capable of replicating itself formed somehow by accident, then this RNA molecule started to produce proteins, than it became necessary to store this information in a second molecule, and somehow the DNA molecule emerged to do that. doesnt change anything. something forming by accident is still invalid and illogical. my question still stands and miller never in his whole book touched on how this first molecule came about, no evolutionist can!. evolution is made up of a chain of impossibilities in each and every stage.
how can it be possible for these imaginary nucleotides to form RNA by coming together in a particular sequence? i dont know if you've herd of him he is a well known evolutionist John Horgan, he admits the impossibility of the chance formation of RNA. and said
As researchers continue to examine the RNA-World concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA initially arise? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under really plausible ones
ok lets say even if it formed by chance how could this RNA, consisting of just a nucleotide chain, have "decided" to self-replicate? and with what kind of mechanism could it have carried out this self-replicating process? Where did it find the nucleotides it used while self-replicating?
again Evolutionist and Microbiologists Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel express the desperate nature of the situtation in their book In the RNA World:
This discussion… has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it would strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential
how much chance can one use? the more reasons why evolution will fall and collapse in the near future
how can it be possible for these imaginary nucleotides to form RNA by coming together in a particular sequence? i dont know if you've herd of him he is a well known evolutionist John Horgan, he admits the impossibility of the chance formation of RNA. and said
As researchers continue to examine the RNA-World concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA initially arise? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under really plausible ones
ok lets say even if it formed by chance how could this RNA, consisting of just a nucleotide chain, have "decided" to self-replicate? and with what kind of mechanism could it have carried out this self-replicating process? Where did it find the nucleotides it used while self-replicating?
again Evolutionist and Microbiologists Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel express the desperate nature of the situtation in their book In the RNA World:
This discussion… has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it would strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential
how much chance can one use? the more reasons why evolution will fall and collapse in the near future
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.