outhouse
Atheistically
the only thing that is complicated is most peoples understanding of a science he doesnt fully understand.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Creation of life on Earth explained
- Thread starter nnmartin
- Start date
the only thing that is complicated is most peoples understanding of a science he doesnt fully understand.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
What does any of this have to do with the beginning of life?
I have no idea how life began and I am ok with not knowing.
Even if it is, any process will apply to something.
A. T. Henderson
R&P refugee
This part i can never digest.May be i am a programmed machine and yet have the notion of intelligence and that misconception that causes this problem (for me).
It is our common everyday experience that we adapt. We do things automatically but we also do things concsiously to overcome difficulties. So, i can never digest this inane suggestion that there is or there never was any intention.
You're confusing deliberate, conscious reaction with chemical reaction, for no apparent reason beyond the desire to do so. Mutation is essentially a chemical reaction: a highly unpredictable one due to the nature of the chemicals involved. It cannot involve intent, because the chemicals themselves are not capable of displaying such.
I'm not really sure what you think you mean by this.
Looncall
Well-Known Member
Ah, I see, delusion. Your or theirs, I am not sure.
I don't know how life arose. Neither does anyone else. I see no reason the suppose that it wasn't just chemistry. We'll see when someone finally figures it out.
Yes. And we see no evolution of chemicals.
A. T. Henderson
R&P refugee
Apart from those present in biology, where we do. DNA is a chemical, and DNA evolves.
You might want to start getting your information about science from scientists.
That is the common theme (as i pointed out elsewhere): Brand the opponent ignorant.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2645569-post217.html
Evolution deals with living organism.
Looncall
Well-Known Member
Well, yes we do. Recent experiments have involved self-replicating RNA molecules (if I remember rightly) that did indeed compete for resources and did evolve.
There is nothing special about life. it's just chemistry.
A. T. Henderson
R&P refugee
You are ignorant: you don't know the subject under discussion. DNA is a chemical, and DNA evolves. The living organism is the product of the interaction between DNA and the various other chemicals used to construct the organism as a whole.
BTW, why did you cite yourself? That seems a little weird.
waitasec
Veteran Member
to be fair, those that flew air planes into the WTC did the same for allah
Mr. Henderson
I know that i am ignorant -- i know only a miniscule part of that is to be known. But you do not even know that you do not know everything.
Have you seen any DNA evolve on its own, apart from a substrate of living organism or without human intervention?
The whole universe is composed of materials-chemicals. No doubt. But chemicals in living organisms have different isotopic composition compared to chemicals in geosphere. This kind of fractionation is not possible in inert environment. Materials associated with life forms continually exhibit greater organisation. Whereas, materials that are apart from living systems do not -- unless under human intervention in laboratory. Even virus replicate only when in contact with living systems.
Photonic
Ad astra!
DNA changes in a Virus on its own too.
Last edited:
The point was different.
There are able biologists who do not agree that gene or DNA or RNA as the unit of evolution. I cited Ernst Mayr and another biologist on this.
Henderson, apparently without reading what Ernst Mayr had to say, jumped to calling me ignorant (which I am).
My point was only to point out the alternative view, which to me is much more sensible that organism as a whole is the object of Natural Selection.
DNA or RNA left on a table top does not mutate.
Last edited:
Photonic
Ad astra!
It may be interesting to note that radiation does affect changes in DNA that is simply "left about."
Yes. chemicals in a piece of bread will get cross-linked under radiation. This happens in microwave cooker as well.
A. T. Henderson
R&P refugee
I have not claimed to know everything.
A single strand of DNA does not evolve, this is true, but only because evolution occurs in populations, not individuals. Regardless, it is DNA which is evolving, notwithstanding the opinions of the few you cited (whose opinions run contrary to the findings of evolutionary science as a whole).
A. T. Henderson
R&P refugee
In any situation where DNA or RNA is able to self replicate, it will, as it must have during the period when life was first developing.
DNA is an enormously complex chemical, so expecting it to perform the things it's capable of in the absence of the innumerable other chemicals it needs to do so is obviously ridiculous.
Ya. Ya.
And for an intelligence that is evolved out of such chemicals to know such wonderful complicated things and assert them as the truths is astounding -- not stupid.