The Simplest Protein of Life

There's nothing different about a calcium atom in one of my bones while I'm alive or after I'm dead. Its just a metal atom either way.

Atoms don't evolve. Self-replicating molecules could though. And they could build up enough complexity to be considered alive. The sky's the limit from there. Don't be a dick.

Wrong. Reproducing is important too. That's the stupidest thing I've read in a while.That don't even make no sense! Wrong. That would require life to have existed forever. We know that there are times when life did not exist.

That's stupid. But when I'm fucking my girlfriend tonight, I'll just keep reminding myself: "Just trying not to die... just trying not to die" Sure it is; There was a point in time in the past when life was unable to exist. Well that's just, like, your opinion, man.You're just making up bullshit. And its not even clever or interesting.You're really old, aren't you? I feel like I'm talking to my grampa.

Its like you're not even trying to make sense anymore. It was in the past. Billions of years ago in the early universe. Life simply couldn't have existed. Actually, its called learning. You should give it a try sometime... no, wait, you're an old dog - you ain't gonna learn shit.So whatever, you're kind will die off soon enough and we won't have to be bothered by you anymore.

The one behind us. The one that's in the direction of the time when I posted my previous message to you. "Earlier" No, seriously:That's rich coming from you. That doesn't make any sense. I'm talking about the Universe's past. Back when life was unable to exist. And how that means that life cannot be eternal.So, to the topic: At some point in the emergence of life, there would have been really simple proteins. What do you think the simplest one could be? Unevidence off-topic assertions like these will not be addressed anymore. I sincerely accept your appology for posting ridiculous off-topic nonsense.

Sort of, but not really.Brad seemed to want to get his point across but simply was unable to do it. Alf seems to want to obfuscate his point in his attempts to discredit knowledge.Both result in not making any sense, but Brad lacked the malicious intent that Alf gives off.

Wut?

Can you point to that publication? The letters in the "code" are notations of chemicals. A is a chemical, T is a chemical, C is a chemical, and G is a chemical. Its all chemicals. How can chemical forces not have effects on chemicals?And the proteins aren't built by instructions, they just follow a string of spontaneous chemical reactions.The DNA transcribes into RNA, and RNA makes amino acids because of its shape. Those amino acids then combine into proteins because of their shapes. It all just follows chemical forces.

Which makes you wonder why someone would try to discount evolution by providing a calculation for something that evolution doesn't claim. Except, we've just seen the calculation for how that is impossible.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

That's a lot of words to say "no".And Chicks publications are not disseminated in high school biology. Nor is the "knowledge" you are claiming common. If it was, you could easily point to it. But its no more pure information than the formation of salt from sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid that is transmitted by means of chemistry.NaOH + HCl --> NaCl + H₂OIf that doesn't elicit the need for a code writer then neither should DNA.And really, how can something be pure information when it is also a string of chemicals?Even the contents of this message isn't pure information, as its made up of pixels on your screen.There's no such thing as pure information.