Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,284 Year: 5,541/9,624 Month: 566/323 Week: 63/143 Day: 6/19 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God's Day 1 Billion Years?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 22 of 61 (338229)
08-06-2006 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by jimrlong.com
08-06-2006 11:07 AM


Re: Makeup of DNA
Well, that's what it's like now, to be sure. And remember too that the structure of DNA is universal; it's the same for all existing organisms, no matter how different those organisms may be. Plants, animals, and everything in between - the genetic mechanism is identical. (Which substantiates the evolutionary position of shared common ancestry.)
What you've described is how it works now. What makes you think that was how it worked in the beginning?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jimrlong.com, posted 08-06-2006 11:07 AM jimrlong.com has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jimrlong.com, posted 08-06-2006 2:53 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 31 by jimrlong.com, posted 08-11-2006 3:34 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 24 of 61 (338273)
08-06-2006 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by jimrlong.com
08-06-2006 2:53 PM


Re: Makeup of DNA
I think more to the point is why you think it wouldn't be if it proves a common ancestry?
Can you reword your question? I don't understand what you're asking me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jimrlong.com, posted 08-06-2006 2:53 PM jimrlong.com has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jimrlong.com, posted 08-06-2006 5:29 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 26 of 61 (338296)
08-06-2006 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by jimrlong.com
08-06-2006 5:29 PM


Re: Makeup of DNA
So why don't you believe this is not what it was like in the beginning?
Why would it be? Things change over time.
If DNA proves a common ancestry, why wouldn't original life have it?
Why would it? Why wouldn't DNA be the later development of a lineage of living things?
So if all life as we know it now has a common ancestor then I would extrapolate that the original life would have it too.
That would be an improper extrapolation. How does that follow logically, in your mind?
If DNA didn’t exist in the origins of life; how and when did we get a common ancestor?
What do these things have to do with each other? You need to refine your thought process before you post again.
Consider this simple model:
1) first living thing evolves with RNA-based genetics and enzymes.
2) decendants of that living thing develop DNA-based genetics and protein-based enzymes.
3) decendants of that living thing go on to evolve into all the living things that exist today.
Just because a group of living things share a quality, doesn't mean that every ancestor of those things shared the quality. Evolution is the source of novel structures in living things, and DNA at one point was one of those novel structures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jimrlong.com, posted 08-06-2006 5:29 PM jimrlong.com has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jimrlong.com, posted 08-07-2006 5:59 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 61 (339907)
08-14-2006 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by jimrlong.com
08-11-2006 3:34 PM


Re: Makeup of DNA
It might make your case for time developing from RNA, but it is without proof that life can exist without DNA.
You've never heard of viruses? Or prions? Now, certainly those things now cannot reproduce except in the context of more complicated life; but certainly they bear similarities to whatever chemical protolife was the ancestors of "truly" living things.
Look, Jim. The whole business is much, much more complicated than you seem prepared to deal with. Your grand pronouncements of what is impossible, buoyed by false statements about what Nasa may or may not have said, are meaningless. If you're not prepared to accept abiogenesis, that's fine. It's true that it's a hard field to work in, because time machines don't exist, and molecules don't readily fossilize.
But we're making progress, and eventually that progress will roll right over your nonsense objections and your throwback theology.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jimrlong.com, posted 08-11-2006 3:34 PM jimrlong.com has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 41 of 61 (339908)
08-14-2006 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by jimrlong.com
08-11-2006 5:38 PM


Re: It has everything to do with the topic
Hebrew Bible: It a drastic contrast in a view of monotheism in a world filled with cultures all having several gods.
The Hebrew Bible may be many things, but it is not monotheistic. While it is true that the Bible asserts the dominance of only one God to be worshipped, it certainly makes no claim that the gods of the other religions do not exist at all. In fact, quite the opposite.
But that's not on-topic in this thread. This is a science thread, not a theology thread.
I have to believe that without a Creator, there is no life.
We've never observed any Creator creating life. Therefore that conclusion is not a scientific one.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jimrlong.com, posted 08-11-2006 5:38 PM jimrlong.com has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Ben!, posted 08-14-2006 1:59 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 43 of 61 (339946)
08-14-2006 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Ben!
08-14-2006 1:59 AM


Re: It has everything to do with the topic
You're really being sloppy here; we don't need to observe any creator creating life to come to such a scientific conclusion. We just need "overwhelming" evidence indicating that that happened.
Well, there's no such evidence that a creator even exists.
And my statement isn't sloppy. No model of abiogenesis will ever be accepted until it produces results under laboratory conditions. There isn't any other kind of evidence avaliable; we won't ever have fossils of the chemical precursors to life. That information is lost forever. Observation of experiment is the only potential evidence that could confirm or dismiss any abiogenic model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Ben!, posted 08-14-2006 1:59 AM Ben! has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Christian7, posted 10-08-2006 6:30 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024