Creation AND Evolution?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Yes you need pre existing genes in order to pass them on. How did the genes evolve out of a chemical soup by natural causes only? Can you explain?

I can explain but you will just reject any such explanation. It goes like this:
Planets of all kinds form from the death of previous stars. A star blows up because it ran out of fuel, H2. It collapses quickly and then a nova or supernova is born.
What happens next is the star, in the act of blowing generates new atoms, bigger ones like phosphorous and iron. Iron is the junk heap of stellar fusion, fusing cannot make anything heavier than iron. But when it goes nova, a lot of stuff heavier than iron is formed.
So that stuff goes out into a light years wide cloud and collides with the indigenous gasses already present in the galaxy.

That stuff mixes together and denser clots happen, those dense clots are literally hundreds of billions of km across and a reaction takes place where the density increases and eventually a new star is born of that second gen product of a previous nova.

So now that cloud going around the new star also clumps together and planets are formed but now including all the newly minted heavier elements.
Those new elements when present on a new planet, if water is present and UV from the new star hits it, reactions take place that takes simple molecules sticking together to make more complex molecules.

This is simple chemistry already seen by astronomers studying new stars.

So those more complex molecules sit around and get sloshed around by water and THEY stick together chemically to make even more complex molecules till an RNA kind of very complex molecule pops up.

From that moment the tide turns towards even more complex molecules and the present work shows it is not a huge step to seeing all that stuff coming together to make the first life forms, simple bacteria and its first predator, viruses which can only reproduce if they successfully suborn the DNA machinery for their own purposes and new viruses pop out.

All of that stuff happened literally billions of years ago and we are of course not 100% at the point where we prove life evolved from the mud muck to what we see today.

I am putting my money on that, not Goddidit.

We see now many planets like Earth where there is water in the atmosphere and the bigger and more powerful our telescopes become and the work of geneticists and biochem people here on Earth the closer we come to answering that central question of how life got to be here on Earth without having to invoke a god.

The thing is, out in the universe, the same exact processes happening near us where a star explodes, producing heavy elements, we see that same thing happening a billion light years from Earth, well maybe a hundred million light years from Earth anyway. and within tiny stretch of the whole universe they see the exact same molecules and elements in the clouds of exploding stars so these chemicals of life are present everywhere we look around us in what we can see of the universe. So it is like a huge chemical experiment where literally quadrillions of molecules partake in reactions driven by UV and goo where the goo gets more complex so it is a numbers game, some of those molecules are already known to get together to make more complex molecules and that seems to be the way things get so complex the result starts reproducing and we then have life.

That is what I am betting on, not some bogus creation story. And there are literally thousands of such tales and the 7 day tale is actually just a repaved version fit for Jews from an even older creation myth invented by ancient Egyptians.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
That process cannot do what is claimed [...] when it comes to the genetic
mutations in DNA.

Yes, it can, and there is a huge body of empirical evidence for it.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
I can explain but you will just reject any such explanation. It goes like this:
Planets of all kinds form from the death of previous stars. A star blows up because it ran out of fuel, H2. It collapses quickly and then a nova or supernova is born.
What happens next is the star, in the act of blowing generates new atoms, bigger ones like phosphorous and ir ...[text shortened]... t a repaved version fit for Jews from an even older creation myth invented by ancient Egyptians.

So those more complex molecules sit around and get sloshed around by water and THEY stick together chemically to make even more complex molecules till an RNA kind of very complex molecule pops up.

Natural compounds can form repeating patterns, but DNA does not do this. The structure of DNA sequencing resembles a language containing information and instructions. Simple chemical affinities (and forces) are only able to form repeating patterns. If this is how RNA and DNA was formed it would read like a short story that starts with the word 'the', and then continues by simply repeating that first word.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Yes, it can, and there is a huge body of empirical evidence for it.

Powerful rebuttal, yes it can! Repent, quote a link start next round.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Read the posts again.

KJ was asserting that someone was making a claim that they didn't and has made similar false assertions with others on this thread as well. A number of people have corrected KJ and explained to him that that wasn't a claim that they were making. The crux of the matter is whether or not KJ was correctly assessing the claim being m ...[text shortened]... asn't. He was misrepresenting their claim.

Is this really so difficult for you to understand?

Is this really so difficult for you to understand?

I understand the 'fight club' mentality of those will attack until they get the response they are looking for.

Is it difficult for you grasp the concept of simply exploring ideas, or are simple minded fight club 'debate' tactics the only part of this that thrills you?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
As above.

So the truth really is you believe that DNA code evolved out of a chemical soup without any empirical evidence, as I suspected.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
[b]So those more complex molecules sit around and get sloshed around by water and THEY stick together chemically to make even more complex molecules till an RNA kind of very complex molecule pops up.

Natural compounds can form repeating patterns, but DNA does not do this. The structure of DNA sequencing resembles a language containing information ...[text shortened]... t story that starts with the word 'the', and then continues by simply repeating that first word.[/b]

Here is some recent wortk (2016) about how RNA could have come about naturally:

https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i18/first-nucleotides-might-formed-Earth.html

Of course this work is riddled with maybe and could be, might be and so forth since the work is not complete but it does show pretty much the latest research on the subject.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Here is some recent wortk (2016) about how RNA could have come about naturally:

https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i18/first-nucleotides-might-formed-Earth.html

Of course this work is riddled with maybe and could be, might be and so forth since the work is not complete but it does show pretty much the latest research on the subject.

And here is some recent work on why Mars could possibly be made of cheese:

https://www.marsmadeofcheese.research.org.html

Of course this work is riddled with maybe and could be, might be and so forth since the work is not complete but it does show pretty much the latest research on the subject. 😉

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Powerful rebuttal, yes it can! Repent, quote a link start next round.

If you are interested in finding out what empirical evidence we have, you can start reading here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
If you are interested in finding out what empirical evidence we have, you can start reading here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

You could start by reading it yourself, maybe then you could be more convincing. 😴

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
If you are interested in finding out what empirical evidence we have, you can start reading here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

You have a pattern.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Here is some recent wortk (2016) about how RNA could have come about naturally:

https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i18/first-nucleotides-might-formed-Earth.html

Of course this work is riddled with maybe and could be, might be and so forth since the work is not complete but it does show pretty much the latest research on the subject.

An RNA molecule cannot replicate itself. For a single strand of RNA to replicate there must be an identical RNA molecule close by.
Natural selection requires a self-replicating organism to work.
However, to have reproduction there has to be cell division... and that presupposes the existence of information rich DNA and proteins.

Sorry, but I'm having trouble imagining a sea full of billions upon trillians of free floating (self existing) strands of RNA sloshing around in wait of a chance encounter with an identical molecule of the right length... not a viable (let alone highly efficient) template for reproduction.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime

However, to have reproduction there has to be cell division...

What makes you think so?

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
How did you "compute" the probability of life starting on its own and from there evolving into higher life forms?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Exactly.

Got it right down to the last penny, eh?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
What makes you think so?

How else?