How life might have started on Earth:

Originally posted by RJHinds
Of course we only know of one source of programmed information. That source comes from intelligence. That answers the what question, which we all should know. In a previous post I also asked how the information got there with no reply. But that also brings up the question: Who has the intelligence to program information in DNA to produce life? I made od. That is only your interpretation. However, I know it can't be EVILUTION.

The Idiot

Of course we only know of one source of programmed information.

Wrong! We know of TWO. One being evolution.

In a previous post I also asked how the information got there with no reply.

The answer that I have already repeatedly given is EVOLUTION. Science has proved this by observations. You are just too thick to get it.

Originally posted by humy

Of course we only know of one source of programmed information.

Wrong! We know of TWO. One being evolution.

In a previous post I also asked how the information got there with no reply.

The answer that I have already repeatedly given is EVOLUTION. Science has proved this by observations. You are just too thick to get it.

All but insane SCIENTISTS ACKNOWLEDGE that EVOLUTION and EVILUTION IS Not AN INTELLIGENCE SOURCE OF INFORMATION and that LIFE COMES FROM LIFE which already has INFORMATION programmed within it. (LAW OF BIOGENESIS)

EVOLUTION (VARIATION CHANGE) NEEDS ALL THE PROGRAMMED INFORMATION PRESENT BEFORE ANY CHANGE CAN BE MADE TO IT BY ANY SELECTIVE OR RANDOM CHANGE METHOD.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds

bla bla bla

The Idiot[/b]

1, Straw man: All scientist DO acknowledge the fact that evolution is “not an intelligent source of information” and you’re totally delusional for believing they don't.

2, as I already pointed out the trivial observation to you countless times in past threads but which you just ignore, the modern law of abiogenesis simply does not apply to the very first life to exist. The modern law of abiogenesis is not a theory of how the first life to exist came into being.

3, what exactly constitutes “ALL” the “programmed information” (as your said ) for the very first life? Since we do not yet know the minimum requirement for what exactly can constitute a viable protocell, why cannot that “ALL” just be one tiny RNA-like molecule just several genetic bases long in a protocell that would have inevitably spontaneously formed somewhere on the early Earth? For all we know, that is all that is required for life to start (and then evolution will then inevitably take over ) .

4, putting all your usual moronic delusional insane ravings, that have all already been debunked countless times in past threads, all in block capitals does nothing to change what they are but only helps to emphasize what they are. So, now according to you by implication, virtually all scientists, despite most being vastly more intelligent than you are and moderately more intelligent than I am, are insane for believing evolution. Well, they are not and you are the one who is insane here.

Originally posted by RJHinds
All but insane SCIENTISTS ACKNOWLEDGE that EVOLUTION and EVILUTION IS Not AN INTELLIGENCE SOURCE OF INFORMATION and that LIFE COMES FROM LIFE which already has INFORMATION programmed within it. (LAW OF BIOGENESIS)

EVOLUTION (VARIATION CHANGE) NEEDS ALL THE PROGRAMMED INFORMATION PRESENT BEFORE ANY CHANGE CAN BE MADE TO IT BY ANY SELECTIVE OR RANDOM CHANGE METHOD.

The Instructor

How does it feel to be as full of shyte as a christmas turkey? I've always wondered about that.

Originally posted by humy
1, Straw man: All scientist DO acknowledge the fact that evolution is “not an intelligent source of information” and you’re totally delusional for believing they don't.

2, as I already pointed out the trivial observation to you countless times in past threads but which you just ignore, the modern law of abiogenesis simply does not apply to the very first lif ...[text shortened]... , are insane for believing evolution. Well, they are not and you are the one who is insane here.

1. All scientist DO acknowledge the fact that evolution is “not an intelligent source of information”.
WE AGREE FINALLY!

2. There is no law of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is an assumption by some evolutionists and is not science, but philosophy or science philosophy.

I was referring to the LAW OF BIOGENESIS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

3. It has been observed that RNA comes from DNA. That is real science. Evilutionists BELIEVE that RNA nay have been first, but that is only speculation and would fall under philosophy not science. All of your questions seem to be concerned with science philosophy and not real science.

http://www.dnalc.org/view/16933-3D-Animation-of-DNA-to-RNA-to-Protein.html

4. The scientist that believe in EVOLUTION as CHANGES THAT PRODUCE VARIETIES IN A SPECIFIC KIND IN NATURE are NOT INSANE, but if any believe in EVILUTION (CHANGES THAT MAKE ONE KIND INTO DIFFERENT KINDS) then they must be either INSANE or STUPID.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds

The Idiot

1. All scientist DO acknowledge the fact that evolution is “not an intelligent source of information”.
WE AGREE FINALLY!

No, for your implied that some may not do so. Unless you finally admit you are dishonest?

I was referring to the LAW OF BIOGENESIS.

That is obviously what I meant. That was a typing error caused by me not noticing the auto-spelling corrector correcting the wrong spelling to the wrong word.

It has been observed that RNA comes from DNA.

Not always for it also has been observed that DNA can come from RNA esp via an enzyme:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase

“...Reverse transcriptase (RT) is an enzyme used to generate complementary DNA (cDNA) from an RNA template, ...”

thus your claim is without valid premise and based on moronic ignorance.

Your last comment is just far too stupid to dignify with any response -leave your religious crap out of this forum. Take all of it to the spirituality forum where it belongs.

Originally posted by sonhouse
How does it feel to be as full of shyte as a christmas turkey? I've always wondered about that.

this must be a bloody awful Christmas turkey.

Originally posted by humy

1. All scientist DO acknowledge the fact that evolution is “not an intelligent source of information”.
WE AGREE FINALLY!

No, for your implied that some may not do so. Unless you finally admit you are dishonest?

I was referring to the LAW OF BIOGENESIS.

That is obviously what I meant. That was a typing error cau ...[text shortened]... our religious crap out of this forum. Take all of it to the spirituality forum where it belongs.

The central dogma of moleclar biology is DNA to RNA to Proteins not the other way around. The case of reverse transcription is a unique exception to this rule and is prone to many errors resulting in mutations. Since DNA coding has error correcting mechanisms built in, it should be obvious that the DNA coding was the orgininal and RNA came from it as the dogma relates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds


The Idiot[/b]

Since DNA coding has error correcting mechanisms built in

Strictly speaking, the “ DNA coding” has no “error correcting mechanisms built in”, at least not directly, but rather error are corrected by enzymes which are proteins that contain no DNA coding. There are, of course, some genes that code for those DNA repair enzymes, but that obviously works rather indirectly via coding for those enzymes via yet other enzymes such as ribosomes etc and there is still no “correcting mechanisms” built directly in the “DNA coding” itself and most genes have nothing to do with coding for DNA repair enzymes and some genomes (mainly from viruses) don't even have any genes for DNA repair enzymes.

it should be obvious that the DNA coding was the orgininal and RNA came from it

Why? Not only have you got a false premise, you have a false inference. Where is the logical contradiction in the false premise of “DNA coding has error correcting mechanisms built in” being actually literally true and DNA having once evolved from RNA? -answer, no contradiction. You are talking total gibberish as usual.

Originally posted by humy

Since DNA coding has error correcting mechanisms built in

Strictly speaking, the “ DNA coding” has no “error correcting mechanisms built in”, at least not directly, but rather error are corrected by enzymes which are proteins that contain no DNA coding. There are, of course, some genes that code for those DNA repair enzymes, but that obvi ...[text shortened]... ving once evolved from RNA? -answer, no contradiction. You are talking total gibberish as usual.

The central dogma of moleclar biology is DNA to RNA to Proteins not the other way around. The coding to make these Protein enzymes that do the correcting is stored in the DNA. So the process is top down, not bottom up as evilutionists make out. This is proven science.

The mimicking of DNA by a variation of the types of RNA is no evidence that the DNA coding evolved from the RNA. That idea comes under the philosophy of science.

The science is clear that RNA came from DNA and proteins are produced by the information coding for the amino acids that fold into the protein shapes.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]The central dogma of moleclar biology is DNA to RNA to Proteins not the other way around. The coding to make these Protein enzymes that do the correcting is stored in the DNA. So the process is top down, not bottom up as evilutionists make out. This is proven science.

The mimicking of DNA by a variation of the types of RNA is no evidence that ...[text shortened]... the information coding for the amino acids that fold into the protein shapes.

The Instructor[/b]

I can only presume you insist RNA came from DNA because that would coincide with your world myth.

There is a problem with your hypothesis:

If RNA came from DNA they would have the same 4 amino acids as the basic lettering.

They don't. They have 3 in common, Adenine, Guanine, and Cytosine.

However, the fourth letter in DNA is Thymine.

In RNA it is Uracil.

That makes it very difficult just splitting up a DNA double helix to the single helix of RNA letter for letter.

Of course I expect you to come up with a rationalization, I have no doubt about that.

RNA has to change a methyl group to become DNA but that is a lot easier than the other way round.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I can only presume you insist RNA came from DNA because that would coincide with your world myth.

There is a problem with your hypothesis:

If RNA came from DNA they would have the same 4 amino acids as the basic lettering.

They don't. They have 3 in common, Adenine, Guanine, and Cytosine.

However, the fourth letter in DNA is Thymine.

In RNA ...[text shortened]... NA has to change a methyl group to become DNA but that is a lot easier than the other way round.

If DNA and RNA must be made of exactly the same components as you claim, then neither could have come or evolved from the other.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
If DNA and RNA must be made of exactly the same components as you claim, then neither could have come or evolved from the other.

The Instructor

RNA differs from DNA besides the double helix thing in that there is one hydroxyl unit dangling off one site and it is in a lower energy state so that unit gets shifted off and the right parts installed and twisting together to make a DNA from RNA. But never the other way round.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]The central dogma of moleclar biology is DNA to RNA to Proteins not the other way around. The coding to make these Protein enzymes that do the correcting is stored in the DNA. So the process is top down, not bottom up as evilutionists make out. This is proven science.

The mimicking of DNA by a variation of the types of RNA is no evidence that ...[text shortened]... ed by the information coding for the amino acids that fold into the protein shapes.

The Idiot[/b]

So the process is top down, not bottom up …...The science is clear that RNA came from DNA....

in modern living cells or in how they evolved? You are deliberately equating the two here but the two don't equate thus this is completely irrelevant. Exactly where is the logical contradiction of RNA metabolically every day in the modern day coming from DNA in modern living cells but DNA just once having evolved from RNA in ancient cells millions of years ago?
Do you erroneously equate the said evolution of metabolism over millions of years with how metabolism works in living cells in the modern day?
I would have pointed out this stupid flaw in your posts before but there was just so much wrong with your posts I didn't get round to it until now.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I can only presume you insist RNA came from DNA because that would coincide with your world myth.

There is a problem with your hypothesis:

If RNA came from DNA they would have the same 4 amino acids as the basic lettering.

They don't. They have 3 in common, Adenine, Guanine, and Cytosine.

However, the fourth letter in DNA is Thymine.

In RNA ...[text shortened]... NA has to change a methyl group to become DNA but that is a lot easier than the other way round.

If RNA came from DNA they would have the same 4 amino acids as the basic lettering.

I think you meant “...4 nucleic acids...”