The first creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible.

[SavedByTheLord]

That is not how it works. And I seriously doubt that a high school biology book would have that error in it. But that's okay. You already admitted that you are wrong by not providing a source when needed.

There is no such thing as self replicating RNA.
It needs proteins and many at that.

 

[metis]

There is no such thing as self replicating RNA.
It needs proteins and many at that.

False:
2. Replicating molecules evolved and began to undergo natural selection.
All living things reproduce, copying their genetic material and passing it on to their offspring. Thus, the ability to copy the molecules that encode genetic information is a key step in the origin of life — without it, life could not exist. This ability probably first evolved in the form of an RNA self-replicator — an RNA molecule that could copy itself.

​

Many biologists hypothesize that this step led to an “RNA world” in which RNA did many jobs, storing genetic information, copying itself, and performing basic metabolic functions. Today, these jobs are performed by many different sorts of molecules (DNA, RNA, and proteins, mostly), but in the RNA world, RNA did it all.

Self-replication opened the door for natural selection. Once a self-replicating molecule formed, some variants of these early replicators would have done a better job of copying themselves than others, producing more “offspring.” These super-replicators would have become more common — that is, until one of them was accidentally built in a way that allowed it to be a super-super-replicator — and then, that variant would take over. Through this process of continuous natural selection, small changes in replicating molecules eventually accumulated until a stable, efficient replicating system evolved. -- How did life originate? - Understanding Evolution

 

[Subduction Zone]

False:
2. Replicating molecules evolved and began to undergo natural selection.
All living things reproduce, copying their genetic material and passing it on to their offspring. Thus, the ability to copy the molecules that encode genetic information is a key step in the origin of life — without it, life could not exist. This ability probably first evolved in the form of an RNA self-replicator — an RNA molecule that could copy itself.

​

Many biologists hypothesize that this step led to an “RNA world” in which RNA did many jobs, storing genetic information, copying itself, and performing basic metabolic functions. Today, these jobs are performed by many different sorts of molecules (DNA, RNA, and proteins, mostly), but in the RNA world, RNA did it all.

Self-replication opened the door for natural selection. Once a self-replicating molecule formed, some variants of these early replicators would have done a better job of copying themselves than others, producing more “offspring.” These super-replicators would have become more common — that is, until one of them was accidentally built in a way that allowed it to be a super-super-replicator — and then, that variant would take over. Through this process of continuous natural selection, small changes in replicating molecules eventually accumulated until a stable, efficient replicating system evolved. -- How did life originate? - Understanding Evolution

And there may have been self replicating molecules that were the precursor to RNA:

Spontaneous Emergence of Self-Replicating Molecules Containing Nucleobases and Amino Acids

The conditions that led to the formation of the first organisms and the ways that life originates from a lifeless chemical soup are poorly understood. The recent hypothesis of “RNA-peptide coevolution” suggests that the current close relationship ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[metis]

And there may have been self replicating molecules that were the precursor to RNA:

Spontaneous Emergence of Self-Replicating Molecules Containing Nucleobases and Amino Acids

The conditions that led to the formation of the first organisms and the ways that life originates from a lifeless chemical soup are poorly understood. The recent hypothesis of “RNA-peptide coevolution” suggests that the current close relationship ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Absolutely.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Absolutely.

Now it is just molecules.

 

[metis]

Now it is just molecules.

You can't even admit you're wrong when objective evidence is provided to you to show you were wrong. You are your own "science" as well as your own "bible", thus making up dung as you go along.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You can't even admit you're wrong when objective evidence is provided to you to show you were wrong. You are your own "science" as well as your own "bible", thus making up dung as you go along.

What evidence?
you have shown none.

 

[metis]

What evidence?
you have shown none.

I did in my post with a link in #624, so you're being dishonest-- again.

I don't understand why I respond to your nonsense-- definitely a fault in me.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I did in my post with a link in #624, so you're being dishonest-- again.

I don't understand why I respond to your nonsense-- definitely a fault in me.

No. It is using catalysts And other things.
So not self replication at all.

 

[Sargonski]

No. It is using catalysts And other things.
So not self replication at all.

Self Replecating molecules have been created in the Lab friend .. no catalyst required other than providing the early earth conditions ... which was the catalyst .. as opposed to "You know who" being the catalyst

 

[YoursTrue]

You can't even admit you're wrong when objective evidence is provided to you to show you were wrong. You are your own "science" as well as your own "bible", thus making up dung as you go along.

Sorry, how is what you provided as objective evidence?

 

[YoursTrue]

Self Replecating molecules have been created in the Lab friend .. no catalyst required other than providing the early earth conditions ... which was the catalyst .. as opposed to "You know who" being the catalyst

"Another problem in replicator chemistry is the complexity of the structures associated with most self-replicators, which are unlikely to emerge spontaneously from simple starting materials." (unlikely to emerge, they say) Spontaneous Emergence of Self-Replicating Molecules Containing Nucleobases and Amino Acids.
Kinda like humans "emerging" by evolution from some UCA maybe in the ape family?

 

[YoursTrue]

Self Replecating molecules have been created in the Lab friend .. no catalyst required other than providing the early earth conditions ... which was the catalyst .. as opposed to "You know who" being the catalyst

How would you feel if the dynamic power to cause self-replication was from God? Would that make you feel bad?

 

[YoursTrue]

Self Replecating molecules have been created in the Lab friend .. no catalyst required other than providing the early earth conditions ... which was the catalyst .. as opposed to "You know who" being the catalyst

It's almost like if a person rubs two sticks together long enough and the conditions are right, a spark can come about and who knows? maybe a forest fire...

 

[Sargonski]

"Another problem in replicator chemistry is the complexity of the structures associated with most self-replicators, which are unlikely to emerge spontaneously from simple starting materials." (unlikely to emerge, they say) Spontaneous Emergence of Self-Replicating Molecules Containing Nucleobases and Amino Acids.
Kinda like humans "emerging" by evolution from some UCA maybe in the ape family?

Good article .. but you failed to show where your claim is supported in that article .. and in fact on reading your article .. it does not argue against the emergence of humans from evolution at all .. and quite the reverse.

Notice the word "Most" in the phrase "Most Self Replicators" -- in context friend this means that "Most" Self Replicators are unlikely (given the stated initial conditions .. which you have not stated but what ever those may be). Some Self Replicators however are not unlikely and perhaps it is those that are responsible for the creation of life.

 

[Sargonski]

How would you feel if the dynamic power to cause self-replication was from God? Would that make you feel bad?

Why would I feel bad if the dynamic power to cause self replication was from God - if everything is from God ? This seems like a nonsense assumption on your part .. one based on lack of understanding of the word God in this equation !?

What if the causal force behind everything going on in the universe ---- IS GOD ? or better we could say causal force or forces .. such as the Big Bang .. whereas the Big Bang is then God.

Would that make you feel bad Brother YT ?

 

[metis]

Sorry, how is what you provided as objective evidence?

#622, which cites evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I did in my post with a link in #624, so you're being dishonest-- again.

I don't understand why I respond to your nonsense-- definitely a fault in me.

In your defense, there isn't much else to respond to in this subforum these days, sadly
It's pretty much dominated by his nonsense...

Each thread more absurd then the next...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How would you feel if the dynamic power to cause self-replication was from God? Would that make you feel bad?

I would have no issue at all with it if it could be sufficiently supported with reliable objective evidence. Got any?
And evolution theory would remain completely unchallenged also.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's almost like if a person rubs two sticks together long enough and the conditions are right, a spark can come about and who knows? maybe a forest fire...

Right, because both sparks and forest fires require humans to initiate them.