If Evolution is true, how did DNA code itself

Bigdog said:
Are you arguing that we lack "free will"?
Click to expand...

We can not even judge that, because we do not know the true plan, as we have no idea where we came from.

But as a rule we exist to reproduce, from 11 to the time this is accomplished it is our goal, and enough are achieving this to increase population which will require that some of us leave the Earth and look for a better place, perhaps where we came from.
 
Bigdog said:
The chronological ordering of the fossil record from "less evolved and diverse" to "more evolved and diverse" is good evidence for the support of macro evolution despite the lack of smooth transition from one form to another.
Click to expand...

Nope the fossils in the Cambrian explosion have no precursors.........................Yawn
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Darwin never suggested that insects evolved into any other sort of animal. I have never heard that claim outside of a creationist strawman.
Click to expand...

lol.....its inherent in what you believe.....you thing sequoias, mosquitoes, and humans are all cousins.......that claim is made every time you open your mouth about macro-evolution.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol.....its inherent in what you believe.....you thing sequoias, mosquitoes, and humans are all cousins.......that claim is made every time you open your mouth about macro-evolution.......
Click to expand...

Common ancestor. That doesn't mean insects evolved into other animals.

The lack of understanding when it comes to the basics of evolution is always astounding to me in these discussions.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
That is a long haul and you still don't get the difference between metamorphosis and evolution. Show us that you understand that beetles did not turn into rhinos and demonstrate that you can answer why there is no crocoduck and maybe someone will think that it's worth the effort to explain it to a dumbass like you.

Better yet, do as Micawber suggested, go to a Museum (The Field Museum is awesome!) or read some books. The only thing you are likely to get here is a good synopsis which you won't understand.
Click to expand...

PMP can't. Or won't. He's nothing more than a dyslexic myna bird.

The rest, which includes PMP, are merely allowing the blinders of their theologies to get in the way of rational thought and scientific curiosity. They NEED their creator to give some sort of validation to their existence.
 
Thing1 said:
And here's another thing we get in these discussions. Endless talk about the lack of "logic" in something like the origin of life...and then a final conclusion that is the most illogical thing imaginable.
Click to expand...

it is less illogocal than claiming man evolved from algae.....or would you like to bail Dick and Mic out and prove that we did.......they don't know where to start so they're both busy claiming they don't have to......
 
This is actually a very excellent question and one that remains unverified, though theories exist as to how DNA evolved from RNA.

http://evolutionfaq.com/faq/how-could-dna-have-evolved

While there is no direct fossil evidence for the evolution of DNA (because of its size and fragility), scientists have theorized on its origins based on verified laboratory evidence. One theory goes like this: RNA, the compliment molecule to DNA, was the first to evolve naturally from materials already common in the pre-biotic Earth. Self-replication was achieved through catalytic actions in RNA-based molecules, called ribosomes, or possibly through an intermediary molecule. This step still remains unverified to science as of this writing.

Once self-replication had been achieved, the forces of Natural Selection took over. For example, those molecules which were protected from the elements survived longer and reproduced more. So, any molecules which found themselves with a lipid bubble (which also forms naturally) would have a better chance of reproducing. After many incremental steps, the lipid bubbles eventually became cell membranes, and the molecules DNA.

more at link...
 
Damocles said:
This is actually a very excellent question and one that remains unverified, though theories exist as to how DNA evolved from RNA.

http://evolutionfaq.com/faq/how-could-dna-have-evolved

While there is no direct fossil evidence for the evolution of DNA (because of its size and fragility), scientists have theorized on its origins based on verified laboratory evidence. One theory goes like this: RNA, the compliment molecule to DNA, was the first to evolve naturally from materials already common in the pre-biotic Earth. Self-replication was achieved through catalytic actions in RNA-based molecules, called ribosomes, or possibly through an intermediary molecule. This step still remains unverified to science as of this writing.

Once self-replication had been achieved, the forces of Natural Selection took over. For example, those molecules which were protected from the elements survived longer and reproduced more. So, any molecules which found themselves with a lipid bubble (which also forms naturally) would have a better chance of reproducing. After many incremental steps, the lipid bubbles eventually became cell membranes, and the molecules DNA.

more at link...
Click to expand...

The pre biotic Earth is still here and can not be reproduced in any way, so God is actually more logical, but that makes us machines doing whatever he wanted, so intellectuals reject this
 
Damocles said:
Often the argument against abiogenesis is the significantly large "random" chance that had to take place in order to form the first life...

Here is an article about that:

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life
Click to expand...

There has been a mythology around self-replication so that we see it as some miraculous event. But it is really like anything else in the process - as the article says, also part of natural selection.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol.....its inherent in what you believe.....you thing sequoias, mosquitoes, and humans are all cousins.......that claim is made every time you open your mouth about macro-evolution.......
Click to expand...

It is not inherent in what I believe. It's based on your misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution suggests.

Cousins, yes. But there is no non insect species that is descended from an insect. The theory of evolution does not suggest that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top