2 edits
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 Idiot
If DNA and RNA must be made of exactly the same components as you claim
He clearly didn't claim this. He has now just told you for the second time that they don't thus he has been saying the exact opposite for he correctly stated that one of the 4 bases are different.
Originally posted by humyThe idea that DNA just once evolved from RNA in ancient cells millions of years ago is a believe system that is philosophy and not science. Maybe this video will make it easier for you to understand the process.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. Where would there be the logical contradiction of RNA metabolically every day in the mod ...[text shortened]... osts before but there was just so much wrong with your posts I didn't get round to it until now.
The Instructor
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
The Idiot
The idea that DNA just once evolved from RNA in ancient cells millions of years ago is a believe system that is philosophy and not science.
No, it is science because it is based on reason as well as certain observations such as RNA being simpler than DNA in basic structure. RNA is simpler than DNA and, only partly because of that, it stands to reason that DNA probably evolved from RNA rather than the other way around although the reasoning behind that is more subtle than that.
P.S. I never watch your videos because we all know they are full of crap.
Originally posted by humyThat is why you are so ignorant. You don't want to learn.The idea that DNA just once evolved from RNA in ancient cells millions of years ago is a believe system that is philosophy and not science.
No, it is science because it is based on reason as well as certain observations such as RNA being simpler than DNA in basic structure. RNA is simpler than DNA and, only partly because of that, ...[text shortened]... e subtle than that.
P.S. I never watch your videos because we all know they are full of crap.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsAre you frigging BLIND? Three of the four are the same, the forth one is different. Where in the hell did you ever get RNA and DNA have the same components?
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
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseYou apparently did not understand what I wrote. I was replying to your implications and did not claim that DNA and RNA have the same components.
Are you frigging BLIND? Three of the four are the same, the forth one is different. Where in the hell did you ever get RNA and DNA have the same components?
The RNA is only a sampling of part of the DNA. The DNA contains the complete code for all the genes. The RNA only contains a portion of the geneic code information to form the amino acids to build a protein. Many RNA strands come from the DNA.
http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/dna/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26887/
Differences Between RNA and DNA & Types of RNA
The Instructor
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHindslearn what? a load of religious crap?
You don't want to learn.
The Idiot
So, now you see I have clearly debunked your claim by pointing out its flaw, instead of any counterargument or admitting you are wrong, you just resort to insults (as usual ) .
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you ignore by debunk in my post and just continual to erroneously equate the said evolution of metabolism over millions of years with how metabolism works in living cells in the modern day.
You apparently did not understand what I wrote. I was replying to your implications and did not claim that DNA and RNA have the same components.
The RNA is only a sampling of part of the DNA. The DNA contains the complete code for all the genes. The RNA only contains a portion of the geneic code information to form the amino acids to build a protein. ...[text shortened]... es Between RNA and DNA & Types of RNA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz5jbhYjaS8
The Idiot
you still refuse to answer my questions because you can't:
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?
Why do you insist on continually erroneously equating the said evolution of metabolism over millions of years with how metabolism works in living cells in the modern day?
I have obviously already clearly debunked your claim and your continual refusal to answer these basic questions proves you're talking nonsense as usual.
Originally posted by humyI have presented no religious crap in this thread. I have presented hard scientific facts. You have failed to debunk any of those facts.
learn what? a load of religious crap?
So, now you see I have clearly debunked your claim by pointing out its flaw, instead of any counterargument or admitting you are wrong, you just resort to insults (as usual ) .
The Instructor
1 edit
Originally posted by humyAnswering hypothetical questions is useless to this discussion on the facts about DNA and RNA. The established fact is that RNA coded strands are derived from the copying of a portion of a strand of the double helix DNA strands.
So you ignore by debunk in my post and just continual to erroneously equate the said evolution of metabolism over millions of years with how metabolism works in living cells in the modern day.
you still refuse to answer my questions because you can't:
Exactly where is the logical contradiction of RNA metabolically every day in the modern day coming from D ...[text shortened]... your continual refusal to answer these basic questions proves you're talking nonsense as usual.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsHere is a full theory of how life started here on Earth, and presumably, in many other places like Earth:
Answering hypothetical questions is useless to this discussion on the facts about DNA and RNA. The established fact is that RNA coded strands are derived from the copying of a portion of a strand of the double helix DNA strands.
The Instructor
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-paleontologist-life-theory.html
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseSuch phrases and words, like "suggests it may have" and "believe" in this article clearly shows that this is philosophy and not hard science fact. As many of you have pointed out to me in the past, this Science Forum is to discuss and debate science only, not religion and philosophy.
Here is a full theory of how life started here on Earth, and presumably, in many other places like Earth:
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-paleontologist-life-theory.html
The Instructor
9 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
The Moron
Such phrases and words, like "suggests it may have" and "believe" in this article clearly shows that this is philosophy and not hard science fact.
The uncertainly they express is exactly how it happened in all the precise correct details. Meanwhile, the hard scientific fact that it (i.e. life beginning without the slightest evidence or reason to believe a god or some gods or some tooth fairies were involved ) happened as proven by the combination of evidence and reason (i.e. scientific method ), remains and that isn't changed in the slightest by uncertainty in exactly how it happened. Since this is based on evidence and reason alone, is not philosophy but science.
Climatology does not tell with certainty what the weather will be a year from now and generally give answers with the words “suggests” or “probably”; So climatology is a “philosophy” and not a “science”? 😛 -This exposes your total stupidity with what you say here. Just try looking up the definition of the words “philosophy” and “science” and came back to us.
Originally posted by humyThen you should have no objection to Creation Science.Such phrases and words, like "suggests it may have" and "believe" in this article clearly shows that this is philosophy and not hard science fact.
The uncertainly they express is exactly how it happened in all the precise correct details. Meanwhile, the hard scientific fact that it (i.e. life beginning without the slightest evidence or re ...[text shortened]... Just try looking up the definition of the words “philosophy” and “science” and came back to us.
The Instructor