Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight

What? You mean they may not die? Please explain. Edited by Buzsaw, : Typo fix

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Those that die or fail to reproduce are weeded out. Those that survive pass on their characteristics.Go back and read the post I was responding to and it will all become clear.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

What is the mechanism for first living organism/s saving their characteristics for the next generation before genetic information had evolved in the genesis of evolution of living organisms? Edited by Buzsaw, : Typo fix

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I believe it doesn't have a true answer. There was no "first living organism/s" in that there is no clear way of deciding what life actually is. At some fairly arbitrary point self replicating chemical reactions became life. The best way I can think of to explain that is to ask at what point does a single tree become a forest of trees? Or when does a town become a city, or when does a child become an adult? We cannot give a precise moment because the concept itself is undefinable.We can obviously see life as much as we can recognize a forest, city, or an adult. We can also assign various criteria for such things, but they aren't real; we just made them up to help us make sense of the world.There is no good answer to your question Buzsaw because what we call life is just a majority vote. There are several examples of what could be life but is missing one or another criteria, its life... but its not. So if Abiogenesis is true there would not be a recognizable "genesis of evolution" but a series of steps with a grey area that is life but not life. Or not life but behaves like life more so than a chemical reaction.

I believe I've already pointed out that RNA has both the ability to contain genetic information, as well as self-catalyze its replication:

quote:

---

An RNA enzyme that catalyzes the RNA-templated joining of RNA was converted to a format whereby two enzymes catalyze each other's synthesis from a total of four oligonucleotide substrates. These cross-replicating RNA enzymes undergo self-sustained exponential amplification in the absence of proteins or other biological materials. Amplification occurs with a doubling time of about 1 hour and can be continued indefinitely. Populations of various cross-replicating enzymes were constructed and allowed to compete for a common pool of substrates, during which recombinant replicators arose and grew to dominate the population. These replicating RNA enzymes can serve as an experimental model of a genetic system. Many such model systems could be constructed, allowing different selective outcomes to be related to the underlying properties of the genetic system.

---

This is the abstract for the paper Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme by Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. JoyceAny questions?

---

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

It's generally considered unlikely that the first organisms were RNA (too complicated a molecule). It's more likely that they were self-replicating polypeptide chains (proteins, basically) but your basic point: the first life was a self-replicated molecule with no seperate genetic material stands.

Thanks very much Vacate and Stagamancer. This all is very interesting. I want to do some Reading and thinking before responding.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Reason why should have had infra red vision too.

Sorry, but that sentence does not make sense: could you rephrase it?

Reason why biblegod should have had infra red vision too.

The problem with this question is "first living organism".There is a very blurry line between self sustained chemical reactions and the first organism.For example, a strand of protein which has absolutely no function whatsoever aside from self replication -- is that alive?

Are you trying to ask me the reason why the god of the Christian bible does not have infra red vision?Or why the god of the Christian bible should have infra red vision?

No, I am not asking answers. After all I did not pose a question.

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate to me, sorry.

What people fail to recognize when they make outlandish statements about God is there is absolutely no evidence to support a God.
These statements are made on a emotional basis without providing an factual information to validate their argument. Every Science discipline from molecular biology to genomics have proven Darwin correct period! When people make these crazy claims about a God it comes from their brainwashing that they received from their religious leaders.
There is an excellent website that publishes a free monthly newsletter - Science and Discovery. These folks cover evolution from soup to nuts. There is also the added benefit that these folks take the Bible and disprove every facet of it.
I think this is a must read for everyone who wants to engage in this debate. The website that I would higly recommend for evryone is:
http://WWW.SCIENCECLUBOFLONGISLAND.COM