If Evolution is true, how did DNA code itself

I thought we were talking about abiogenesis---that's well before protein synthesis.

With abiogenesis, at some point or other, functional proteins had to form---without protein synthesis. PS is a biochemical system, which itself, relies on scores if not hundreds of proteins in the ribosome and etc.

My point is that probabilities have much to do the problem. You tried to dismiss it via a straw man fallacy.
My point is you don't understand protein synthesis. Do you know there are vast numbers of microorganisms that contain no functional proteins. Many prokaryotes, archaea, contain no ribosomes and do not produce functional proteins? They certainly predate bacteria and eukaryotes. They are composed mainly of water, phospholipids and carbohydrates all of which can be produced by organic chemical reactions.

All of which are not produced randomly but through specific chemical processes guided by physical and chemical laws. Me thinks you're confusing those with random mutation.

As for my point on statistics it is not a strawman. That is statistical law. You cannot calculate a probability for an event that has already occurred.
 
How did a living thing manage to have nondefective DNA and survive in the first place.....

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Most creatures have the ability to survive, through breathing, eating, etc; but those with a defect in their coding, may develop a condition that shortens their lifespan.
 
And yet, it only happened one time, and never again. What are the odds?

It's only a guess that it's only happened once and never again; because there are millions of other solar systems and within all those solar systems, there are millions of other planets.
 
It threatens any theistic worldview that says god populated the world with present day forms with the snap of his noodle appendages, like the Bible says happened in a single day. If your religion is scant on any details then it is not threatened.

The might become more clear, if someone can show how long God's day is. :dunno:
 
you have evidence of a twice?......don't get me wrong.....I think God repeated the process lots of times, but that generally isn't a thing shared by non believers.....

I'm waiting for the day that the Hubble telescope takes a picture of another telescope pointed in our direction. :D
 
???....no threat to my theistic worldview what so ever.......God created creatures capable of evolving.......many different creatures capable of evolving into many other creatures capable of evolving.....

Now add in that who's to say that we (humans) are the end of our own evolution.
 
I'm very comfortable pointing out that a first cause is illogical if you apply cause and effect to everything as part of your logic. It makes no sense to carve out a giant exception, conveniently for a deity creator to occupy. Who or what caused the creator? If he always existed there is no first cause. I'm more comfortable with that paradox than one where a God that did not exist making himself exist, without having been "caused."

Of course you can always claim he is outside cause effect, space/time or any other inconvenient aspect of observed reality.

God is going to lose any science debate, he can only survive lurking in recesses of philosophy or church.

Without God, then how does anyone else explain life?
 
I'm not sure I understand your question.

Most creatures have the ability to survive, through breathing, eating, etc; but those with a defect in their coding, may develop a condition that shortens their lifespan.

we are discussing origin.....your comment deals with the issue of living things changing......my point is until we have the first "living thing" there is nothing to change.....
 
Back
Top