New guy who believes in God

Well, I’ll be. I have to admit I’m impressed. You actually addressed one of my responses. A sincere thank you for doing so. Unnnnnnnfortunately, you apparently (obviously) missed the point I was making. Well, either missed it, OR purposely deflected it because you did not like the point I made. Kinda hard to say which. Oh, well. Doesn’t really matter much either way. Results are the same, regardless. So, with that in mind, please allow me to spell out that point in a more simple manner. Wouldn’t want you straining yourself too much trying to figure it out. I would feel bad if you got a headache. Also, I will be typing slowly so you don’t have to read too fast.

For starters, I never said anything about others who interpret the bible differently as not being Christian. As far as I’m concerned, anybody who follows the bible and the god therein is a Christian (Protestants and Catholics alike). And it is not that all the different sects believe the other sects are not Christian. Most of them simply believe the others are not TRUE Christians. And to say most of those disagreements are “minor” is an amazingly hilarious statement. :joy::joy: Has it totally escaped your attention that throughout history there have been countless WARS started over some of those “minor” differences? Brutally bloody conflicts that sometimes lasted for decades or centuries. Millions of people slaughtered over some of those “minor” differences. Some of those conflicts are still ongoing in various ways even during these modern times. But, please, feel free to keep deluding yourself.

Nice try at diverting the subject, though. I would love to make you feel good by saying you almost had me distracted, but I would be lying. And that would be unfair to you. I’m just trying to help you learn. So, on to my original point…

As I said before, the Holy Bible is supposedly the PERFECT words of your god, used to deliver his PERFECT message to all of humanity. Oddly enough, though, MAN seemed to think god’s perfect words were not perfect enough to suit Man’s taste. Because over several centuries, those Perfect Words have been interpreted, edited, translated, and revised in countless ways by countless ruling class nobles and high ranking church officials. Oh, and while I’m thinking about it, I should also mention that during the time periods all that was happening, a VAST MAJORITY of the human population was completely ILLITERATE. (Funny how most people seem to conveniently “forget” that bit of trivia.) Yet, your all-knowing/all-powerful PERFECT god chose a BOOK to spread his vital message to the world. Brilliant. :roll_eyes: See what I’m saying yet? (Hmmm… Probably not.) Well, let’s try this…

While all the science and cosmology and evolution theories and bio-chemical stuff is fascinating and has always been of interest to me, it has little-to-nothing to do with my being an atheist. There are thousands of gods out there YOU do not believe in because you think they are made up fanciful tales created by ancient people to explain things they did not understand at the time. And you be correct in that evaluation. The problem, however, is you are completely blind to the fact your god is no different than those other gods. And the FACT there are so many different Christian denominations that have developed over the centuries due to that Perfect Book (the bible) is all I need to know that the god portrayed in it is neither all-knowing nor all-powerful. (And it sure as FUCK ain’t all-loving/benevolent.) Therefore, even if that god DID exist, it is something I would not worship. (Not that I would ever worship anything in the first place.) But, again, please feel free to keep deluding yourself. You do whatever helps you cope with life. To each his own, as far as I’m concerned.


Hmmmm… :thinking:… Something of a dilemma, huh? Yeah, those can be tricky sometimes… Gosh. What to do? :thinking::grinning: Hey, I have an idea. Just whisper your question in my ear, and I’ll evaluate it and tell you whether or not you should ask it. If it’s a silly question, I promise I won’t tell anybody… (leaning in closer with hand cupped behind ear)…


DON’T DO IT! Don’t listen to him! He is baiting you!


And until the dawn of the first millennium no one knew about Jesus. So what happened to all those rigid corpses rotting in the ground prior to his brief appearance on earth? And also, when’s he coming back already? You know, there are a lot of baptized dead babies rotting in the ground who would simply love to go to heaven. Can’t say the same for the unbaptized babies, unfortunately. Hey! At least they get their own special plot in the cemetery, right!!! :stuck_out_tongue:

Darwin’s Finches. Ever heard of them? Natural Selection in action. Small differences in the finches genetic code led to random births where some finches had short tough beaks (good for cracking nuts) and others had long slender beaks (good for rooting worms). Depending on seasonal environmental conditions some of the finches with their adaptive phenotypes were better suited to survive and reproduce.

Different Phenotypes are simply differences in one or more genes that change the protein structure of the feature of the animal.

How do you think Giraffes got such long necks? Did God in all his wisdom just create the Giraffe? Don’t be so dull witted. The Giraffe has, like all mammals, a set of genes that determine the size and shape of its neck. The Giraffe slowly developed a long neck due to small, incremental changes in one or more of the genes encoding the size and shape of the neck. If there had been no advantage to having a long neck, the trait would never have been selected by nature. However, since the trait allows the Giraffe to access food not accessible to other animals it was selected for. Over time the trait became a part of the existing lineage of the animal.

While we’re on the subject of Muslim’s … what about Buddhists? Hindus? Sikhs?

The number of Islamic and Hindus in the world is larger than all Christians. What will God do to the Muslims and Hindus? What will he do to the Pure Land Buddhists who believe that they can enter Buddha Amitabha’s Pure Land merely by believing in him and chanting his name?

That’s simply wrong. RNA is self assembling and self replicating. And out of RNA you get DNA and vice versa. The current COVID-19 pandemic is the result of a RNA type virus - which (mind you) has mutated over 32 times in the last 2 years. Viruses are great examples of evolution happening in real time. The Omicron variant has evaded vaccines simply because of 32 distinct mutations in its “spike protein”. Why else do you think it evades vaccine induced white blood cell antibodies? Do you deny that it has mutated? Or was it God again? That nasty old fuck. What’s his fucking problem anyway.

1 Like

It happens all the time with viruses. Viruses are not technically “life” because they lack the ribosomes to replicate their own RNA or DNA.

But RNA appears spontaneously under the right conditions.

A more interesting question is this:

We have DNA, but we need ribosomes to translate messenger RNA into protein chains of amino acids.

But we can’t transcribe the messenger RNA for the proteins that make up ribosomes without ribosomes!

So, what the fuck?

Ribosomes are made of protein and RNA. So what the fuck? Forget about God and magical fairies! Shit! Forget about Science! The fundamental question of how we go from DNA to protein doesn’t even make sense!

Oh! Wait! Science figured it out. Complicated stuff. Maybe it’s just easier to say that God made the ribosome first and the DNA second. Was that on the third and fourth day?

Here’s the paper describing the pre-biotic history of rRNA and ribosomes.


The transition from the synthesis of noncoded heterogeneous oligomers to proteins by the ribosome conferred advantages, because some reaction products bound to the ribosome. Proteinization of the ribosome drove a more general proteinization of other processes, giving rise to modern biology as described by the central dogma. The ribosome spawned the existing symbiotic relationship of protein and nucleic acid.

1 Like

Oh look, there is just so much comedy gold emanating from this specimen.

Let’s start with this collection of nonsense, beginning with:

If you think this tiresome and repeatedly destroyed duplicitous strawman caricature pears any relation to a real scientific postulate, then either you slept through your science classes, or you never had enough functioning neurons to understand what was being taught.

First of all, the big bang wasn’t an “explosion”, it was an expansion of the fabric of spacetime, which is demonstrably infinitely elastic. Indeed, that expansion is continuing right now, and is measured by the Hubble Constant.

As for your fatuous assertion that anyone who paid attention in class thinks this came from “nothing”, strap yourself in, Looby Loo, you’re in for a hard ride.

Let’s deal with the “atheists believe something came from nothing” canard once and for all, shall we?

Item one. Atheists dispense with belief altogether. Instead, if they’re contemplating a postulate properly, they ask “what evidence exists in support of this postulate?”, and look to whichever discipline is supplying the evidence.

Item two. The people who REALLY think the universe came from “nothing”, are those mythology fanboys who think their imaginary magic man from their favourite mythology, waved his magic todger and poofed the universe into existence from nothing. So even before I move on to the next items, this alone stuffs the “atheists think the universe came from nothing” excrement down the toilet and pulls the flush hard.

Item three. The question of the origin of the universe has nothing to do with atheism. This question is the remit of cosmological physics. And, once again, those of us who paid attention in class, turn to that discipline, and ask what postulates arise therefrom, and what evidence is supplied in support thereof.

Item four. No cosmological physicist presents the fatuous notion that the universe “came from nothing”. Instead, cosmological physicists postulate that testable natural processes, acting upon well defined entities, were responsible for the origin of the observable universe in its current form.

Item five. The question of the origin of the universe is an active research topic, and as a corollary, a number of hypotheses are extant in the field, with respect to the origin of the observable universe. Indeed, it’s a measure of how far cosmological physics has progressed, that researchers in the field are able to postulate a number of pre-Big-Bang cosmologies, and then work out how to test those cosmologies and the hypotheses underpinning them.

Item six. As an example of the ideas extant in the literature, I’m aware of two papers by Steinhardt & Turok, namely this one and this one, in which they propose a pre-Big-Bang cosmology centred upon braneworld collisions, and which possesses three elegant features. Namely:

[1] It provides a mechanism for the donation of energy to the newly instantiated universe, facilitating subsequent matter synthesis;

[2] It eliminates the singularity problem from standard Big Bang cosmology;

[3] It provides a testable prediction, namely that the power spectrum of primordial gravitational waves will take a specific form, with the graph skewed towards short wavelengths.

Indeed, [3] above is one of the reasons scientists have been labouring diligently, to produce operational gravitational wave detectors, precisely so that they can test this prediction, once they’ve learned how to distinguish between primordial gravitational waves and gravitational waves of more recent origin. The moment they learn to do this, the requisite tests will be conducted. Furthermore, if those tests reveal a power spectrum that matches the Steinhardt-Turok prediction, then Steinhardt & Turok walk away with the Nobel Prize for Physics.

In more detail, that prediction is constructed as follows. Measure both the amplitude and the wavelength of the incoming gravitational waves, and plot a graph of increasing wavelength along the x axis, and increasing amplitude along the y axis. The resulting graph is a power spectrum curve. The prediction made by Steinhardt & Turok, is that the curve will slope downwards from left to right, with the short wavelength waves being more abundant and of greater magnitude than the long wavelength waves.

Since as far as I’m aware, this is the only cosmological model from which this prediction arrives, an examination of the data will uniquely distinguish between this and other competing pre-Big-Bang cosmologies. Which is why scientists are so eager to test it.

Now, as I’ve just mentioned, there are other competing cosmological models extant in the literature, but I’m not as familiar with those as I would like to be, and in particular, Hawking’s no-boundary theorem is sufficiently esoteric that I suspect fewer than 20 people on the planet truly understand it. As a corollary, I won’t pretend to be knowledgeable about this, but this is merely yet another example, demonstrating the principle I’ve espoused above, namely, that actual cosmological physicists postulate that testable natural processes, involving well-defined entities and interactions, were responsible for triggering the Big Bang.

Which is an eminently sensible position to take, given that we have abundant evidence for testable natural processes documented in several million peer reviewed scientific papers, and which have been found to be sufficient to account for the vast body of observational data obtained over the past 350 years.

On the other hand, we have zero evidence for a cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology, a mythology moreover that is littered with ludicrous assertions, of a sort that no properly educated person can treat seriously.

I’ll deal with the rest of your bullshit in following posts.


Moving on, we address this …

Guess what, Looby Loo? Over 100,000 peer reviewed scientific papers document the laboratory experiments, establishing that the chemical reactions implicated in the origin of life all work. That research has now moved on to experiments with synthetic model protocells, and sample papers from that latest research can be read here, here and here.

Indeed, I was recently pointed to new research by Japanese scientists, establishing that RNA molecules can not only undergo Darwinian evolution when they are synthesised, but that they can also generate a molecular ecosystem. The non-technical account of this latest discovery can be read here, and relevant scientific papers can be read here, here, here and here.

Of course, there is much more I would like to expound here, but that requires a separate post, which will follow this one shortly.


I now turn to some of the evidence for abiogenesis in more detail, though this article I wrote some time ago needs updating with new data, but it’s still sufficient to demonstrate that we have a large body of evidence supporting the relevant postulates.

The Emergence Of Life On Earth

In the earliest period of the history of the planet, it was a body devoid of life, and conditions on the planet were far from conducive to the appearance of life, particularly during the episode termed “The Late Heavy Bombardment”[1] by scientists, which saw intense bolide impact activity taking place on the planet’s surface. Once this episode, and subsequent episodes postulated to have taken place, were complete, the Earth cooled, a solid crust formed, and liquid water in quantity began to appear. Thus, the stage was set for the processes that were to result in the emergence of life.

It was Darwin himself who first speculated about the origins of life, with his short remarks about a “warm little pond”[2], but, in the middle of the 19th century, this would remain speculation, as the means to determine the mechanisms that might apply had not yet been developed. However, it made eminent sense to scientists following Darwin, to hypothesise that any natural mechanisms responsible for the origin of life would be based upon organic chemistry, since life itself is manifestly based thereupon - millions of organic reactions are taking place within your body as you read this, and indeed, the cessation of some of those reactions constitutes the end of life for any organisms affected.

Alexander Oparin, the Soviet biochemist, was the first to publish hypotheses about the chemical basis of the origin of life[3], and based his own hypotheses on the notion that a reducing atmosphere existed on the primordial Earth, facilitating the production of various organic compounds that would then react further, producing a cascade of escalating complexity that would ultimately result in self-replicating entities. Back in 1924, his hypotheses remained beyond the remit of scientists to test, but that would soon change.

The first indications that Oparin had alighted upon workable ideas came in 1953, with the celebrated Miller-Urey Experiment[4], in which electrical discharges in a reducing atmosphere composed of simple molecules produced measurable quantities of amino acids. Miller himself only cited the presence of five amino acids, as he was reliant at the time upon paper chromatography as his primary analytical tool, which was only sensitive enough to detect those five amino acids cited. However, Miller had been more successful than he originally claimed: after his death, preserved samples of his original reaction mixtures were subject to state-of-the-art analysis, using gas chromatograph mass spectrometry, a technique millions of times more sensitive, and regarded as the ‘gold standard’ in modern organic analysis. That subsequent analysis yielded not five, but twenty-two amino acids[5].

Early criticism of Miller’s work in the scientific community focused upon the requirement for a reducing atmosphere in accordance with the Oparin model. However, subsequent workers determined by repeat experimentation, that a range of atmospheric constitutions would be suitable for a Miller-Urey type synthesis on a prebiotic Earth[6], several of those constitutions being only mildly reducing, expanding the range of conditions for which the Oparin model would be viable. More recently, work has suggested that the prebiotic Earth could have developed an atmosphere containing considerably more hydrogen than originally thought[7], making the Oparin reducing atmosphere once again more plausible. Indeed, the range of conditions under which amino acids could be synthesised has since been expanded to include interstellar ice clouds, courtesy of more recent research[8 - 14], and the Murchison meteorite was found to contain no less than ninety amino acids, nineteen of which are found on Earth, which were obviously synthesised whilst that meteorite was still in space. Other data from meteorites adds to this body of evidence[10, 15, 16].

The formation of amino acids itself, whilst an important step in any naturalistic origin of life, would need to be accompanied by some means of linking those amino acids into peptide molecules[17] - the process by which proteins are formed. A significant step forward with respect to this, arose when researchers alighted upon the fact that carbonyl sulphide, a gas that is produced in quantity naturally by volcanoes, acts as a catalyst for the formation of peptides, increasing yields dramatically[18]. This would facilitate peptide formation not only in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, but in the vicinity of terrestrial volcanoes close to bodies of open water. Indeed, Miller had produced the 22 amino acids found in some of his reaction mixtures by extending the synthesis to include volcanic input, though not carbonyl sulphide - the addition of carbonyl sulphide would, however, facilitate peptide formation rapidly once the amino acids themselves were formed.

One additional problem to be overcome was the ‘chirality problem’. Amino acids, with the exception of glycine, are chiral molecules, existing in two forms that are mirror images of each other in space (stereoisomers). Initially, methods for producing one form preferentially over another were something of a puzzle, but chemists working in an entirely different field established that a process called ‘chiral catalysis’ exists, indeed, this work led to a Nobel Prize for the researchers in question[19]. The demonstrated existence of working chiral catalysts[20] led abiogenesis researchers to seek such catalytic processes in their own field, and, in due course, these were alighted upon[15, 21- 24].

However, amino acids are not the only molecules required for life, important though they are. Some form of self-replicating molecule, providing the basis of an inheritance mechanism, is required. Given the difficulties involved in synthesising DNA as a total synthesis, researchers turned to RNA instead, a molecule that still forms the basis of the genomes of numerous extant taxonomic Families of viruses today. RNA, being easier to synthesise, was considered a natural first choice for the basis of primordial genomes, and thus, attention turned to the synthesis of RNA under prebiotic conditions. This was soon found not only to be possible, but to be readily achievable in the laboratory, and indeed, catalysis plays a role in these experiments. Natural clays formed from a mineral called montmorillonite provide a ready natural catalyst that would have been present in quantity on a prebiotic Earth, and the catalytic chemistry of RNA formation whilst adsorbed to such clays is now a standard part of the scientific literature[22- 42].

Having established that RNA was synthesisable under prebiotic conditions, researchers then turned to the matter of establishing the existence of self-replicating species of RNA molecules. This was duly successful[30, 43, 45 - 47], establishing that such species could have arisen among the extant RNA molecules being synthesised on a prebiotic Earth, and of course, once one self-replicating species exists, the process of evolution can begin, which has also since been demonstrated to apply to replicating RNAs in appropriate laboratory experiments[48].

Once a self-replicating molecule that can form the basis of an inheritance mechanism exists, the next stage scientists postulate to be required is encapsulation within some sort of selectively permeable membrane. The molecules of choice for these membrane are lipids, which have been demonstrated repeatedly in the laboratory to undergo spontaneous self-organisation into various structures, such as bilayer sheets, micelles and liposomes. Indeed, in the case of phospholipids, they can be stimulated to self-organise by the simple process of agitating the solution within which they are suspended - literally, shake the bottle[49 - 53].

Moreover, research has established that these lipids can encapsulate RNA molecules, and selectively admit the passage of base and sugar molecules to facilitate RNA replication[54, 55]. With the advent of this discovery in appropriate laboratory research, protocell formation is but a short step away, and indeed, the latest research is now actively concentrating upon the minimum components required in order for a viable, self-replicating protocell to exist. Prebiotic lipid formation is also a part of the repertoire of the literature in the field, and some papers now extant document the first experiments aimed at producing viable self-replicating protocells[55 - 70].

Whilst scientists naturally accept that ‘joining the dots’ between these individual steps is entirely proper, particularly on a body the size of a planet over a 100 million year period, the absence of experiments actively coupling these stages is a matter remaining to be addressed, though such experiments will be ambitious in scope indeed if they are to produce complete working protocells at the end of a long production line starting with a Miller-Urey synthesis.

A ‘grand synthesis’ of this sort in the laboratory is not high on the scientific agenda at the moment, which is more concerned with validating the individual hypothesised steps, but once those steps are accepted as valid in the field, doubtless one day a ‘grand synthesis’ will be attempted, and the success thereof will establish beyond serious doubt that our pale blue dot became our home courtesy of well-defined and testable chemical reactions. Even so, no one conversant with the literature seriously considers any more that magical forces are required to produce life: just as vitalism was refuted by Wöhler’s classic experiment, that gave rise to organic chemistry as an empirical science in the first place, so it is likely to be rendered ever more irrelevant in abiogenesis research, as the steps leading to life’s blossoming on our planet are traversed and studied in ever greater detail.


[1] An apposite paper (among many) covering the Late Heavy Bombardment is:

Origin Of The Cataclysmic Late Heavy Bombardment Period Of The Terrestrial Planets by R. Gomes, H. F. Levison, K. Tsiganis and A. Morbidelli, Nature, 435: 466-469 (26th May 2005)

[2] Cited in The Life And Letters Of Charles Darwin, Including An Autobiographical Chapter, edited by Francis Darwin, 1887

[3] The Origin And Development Of Life by Alexander Oparin, 1924 (English translation: NASA TTF-488)

[4] A Production Of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions by Stanley L. Miller, Science, 117: 528-529 (15th May 1953)

[5] The Miller Volcanic Discharge Spark Experiment by Adam P. Johnson, H. James Cleaves, Jason P. Dworkin, Daniel P. Glavin, Antonio Lazcano and Jeffrey L. Bada, Science, 322:404 (17th Ocotber 2008)

[6] Amino Acid Synthesis From Hydrogen Cyanide Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions[/i] by J. Oró and S. S.Kamat, Nature, 190: 442-443 (1961)

[7] A Hydrogen Rich Early Earth Atmosphere by Feng Tian, Owen B. Toon, Alexander A. Pavlov and H. de Sterck, Science, 308: 1014-1017 (13th May 2005)

[8] A Rigorous Attempt To Verify Interstellar Glycine by I. E. Snyder, F. J. Lovas, J. M. Hollis, D. N. Friedel, P. R. Jewell, A. Remijan, V. V. Ilyushin, E. A. Alekseev and S. F. Dyubko, The Astrophysical Journal, 619(2): 914-930 (1st February 2005)

[9] Interstellar Glycine by Yi-Jehng Kuan, Steven B. Charnley, Hui-Chun Huang, Wei-Ling Tseng, and Zbigniew Kisiel, The Astrophysical Journal, 593: 848-867 (20th August 2003)

[10] Prebiotic Materials From On And Off The Early Earth by Max Bernstein, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

[11] Racemic Amino Acids From The Ultraviolet Photolysis Of Interstellar Ice Analogues by Max P. Bernstein, Jason P. Dworkin, Scott A. Sandford, George W. Copoper and Louis J. Allamandola, Nature, 416: 401-403

[12] A Combined Experimental And Theoretical Study On The Formation Of The Amino Acid Glycine And Its Isomer In Extraterrestrial Ices by Philip D. Holtom, Chris J. Bennett, Yoshihiro Osamura, Nigel J Mason and Ralf. I Kaiser, The Astrophysical Journal, 626: 940-952 (20th June 2005)

[13] The Lifetimes Of Nitriles (CN) And Acids (COOH) During Ultraviolet Photolysis And Their Survival In Space by Max P. Bernstein, Samantha F. M. Ashbourne, Scott A. Sandford and Louis J. Allamandola, The Astrophysical Journal, 601: 3650270 (20th January 2004)

[14] The Prebiotic Molecules Observed In The Interstellar Gas by P. Thaddeus, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (7th September 2006)

[15] Molecular Asymmetry In Extraterrestrial Chemistry: Insights From A Pristine Meteorite by Sandra Pizzarello, Yongsong Huang and Marcelo R. Alexandre, Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(10): 3700-3704 (11th March 2008)

[16] Organic Compounds In Carbonaceous Meteorites by Mark A. Sephton, Natural Products Reports (Royal Society of Chemistry), 19: 292-311 (2002)

[17] Peptides By Activation Of Amino Acids With CO On (Ni,Fe)S Surfaces: Implications For The Origin Of Life by Claudia Huber and Günter Wächtershäuser, Science, 281: 670-672 (31st July 1998)

[18] Carbonyl Sulphide-Mediated Prebiotic Formation Of Peptides by Luke Leman, Leslie Orgel and M. Reza Ghadiri, Science, 306: 283-286 (8th October 2004)

[19] Nobel Prize for Chemistry, 2001, was awarded to William S. Knowles, Ryoji Noyori and K. Barry Sharpless, for their work establishing the existence of asymmetric catalysts and chiral catalysis - see the Nobel Lecture by William S. Knowles here

[20] Homogeneous Catalysis In The Decomposition Of Diazo Compounds By Copper Chelates: Asymmetric Carbenoid Reactions[/i] by H. Nozaki, H. Takaya, S. Moriuti and R. Noyori, Tetrahedron, 24(9): 3655-2669 (1968)

[21] Prebiotic Amino Acids As Asymmetric Catalysts by Sandra Pizzarello and Arthur L. Weber, Science, 303: 1151 (20 February 2004)

[22] Homochiral Selection In The Montmorillonite-Catalysed And Uncatalysed Prebiotic Synthesis Of RNA by Prakash C. Joshi, Stefan Pitsch and James P. Ferris, Chemical Communications (Royal Society of Chemistry), 2497-2498 (2000) [DOI: 10.1039/b007444f]

[23] RNA-Directed Amino Acid Homochirality by J. Martyn Bailey, FASEB Journal (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology), 12: 503-507 (1998)

[24] Catalysis In Prebiotic Chemistry: Application To The Synthesis Of RNA Oligomers by James P. Ferris, Prakash C. Joshi, K-J Wang, S. Miyakawa and W. Huang, Advances in Space Research, 33: 100-105 (2004)

[25] Cations As Mediators Of The Adsorption Of Nucleic Acids On Clay Surfaces In Prebiotic Environments by Marco Franchi, James P. Ferris and Enzo Gallori, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 33: 1-16 (2003)

[26] Ligation Of The Hairpin Ribozyme In cis Induced By Freezing And Dehydration by Sergei A. Kazakov, Svetlana V. Balatskaya and Brian H. Johnston, The RNA Journal, 12: 446-456 (2006)

[27] Mineral Catalysis And Prebiotic Synthesis: Montmorillonite-Catalysed Formation Of RNA by James P. Ferris, Elements, 1: 145-149 (June 2005)

[28] Montmorillonite Catalysis Of 30-50 Mer Oligonucleotides: Laboratory Demonstration Of Potential Steps In The Origin Of The RNA World by James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the biosphere, 32: 311-332 (2002)

[29] Montmorillonite Catalysis Of RNA Oligomer Formation In Aqueous Solution: A Model For The Prebiotic Formation Of RNA by James P. Ferris and Gözen Ertem, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 115: 12270-12275 (1993)

[30] Nucelotide Synthetase Ribozymes May Have Emerged First In The RNA World by Wentao Ma, Chunwu Yu, Wentao Zhang and Jiming Hu, The RNA Journal, 13: 2012-2019, 18th September 2007

[31] Prebiotic Chemistry And The Origin Of The RNA World by Leslie E. Orgel, Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 39: 99-123 (2004)

[32] Prebiotic Synthesis On Minerals: Bridging The Prebiotic And RNA Worlds by James P. Ferris, Biological Bulletin, 196: 311-314 (June 1999)

[33] RNA Catalysis In Model Protocell Vesicles by Irene A Chen, Kourosh Salehi-Ashtiani and Jack W Szostak, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 127: 13213-13219 (2005)

[34] RNA-Catalysed Nucleotide Synthesis by Peter J. Unrau and David P. Bartel, Nature, 395: 260-263 (17th September 1998)

[35] RNA-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization: Accurate and General RNA-Templated Primer Extension by Wendy K. Johnston, Peter J. Unrau, Michael S. Lawrence, Margaret E. Glasner and David P. Bartel, Science, 292: 1319-1325, 18th May 2001

[36] RNA-Directed Amino Acid Homochirality by J. Martyn Bailey, FASEB Journal (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology), 12: 503-507 (1998)

[37] RNA Evolution And The Origin Of Life by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature, 338: 217-224 (16th March 1989)

[38] Sequence- And Regio-Selectivity In The Montmorillonite-Catalysed Synthesis Of RNA by Gözen Ertem and James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 30: 411-422 (2000)

[39] Synthesis Of 35-40 Mers Of RNA Oligomers From Unblocked Monomers. A Simple Approach To The RNA World by Wenhua Huang and James P. Ferris, Chemical Communications of the Royal Society of Chemistry, 1458-1459 (2003)

[40] Synthesis Of Long Prebiotic Oligomers On Mineral Surfaces by James P. Ferris, Aubrey R. Hill Jr, Rihe Liu and Leslie E. Orgel, Nature, 381: 59-61 (2nd May 1996)

[41] The Antiquity Of RNA-Based Evolution by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature, 418: 214-221, 11th July 2002

[42] The Roads To And From The RNA World by Jason P. Dworkin, Antonio Lazcano and Stanley L. Miller, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 222: 127-134 (2003)

[43] A Self-Replicating Ligase Ribozyme by Natasha Paul & Gerald F. Joyce, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99(20): 12733-12740 (1st October 2002)

[44] Emergence Of A Replicating Species From An In Vitro RNA Evolution Reaction by Ronald R. Breaker and Gerald F. Joyce, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 91: 6093-6097 (June 1994)

[45] Ribozymes: Building The RNA World by Gerald F. Joyce, Current Biology, 6(8): 965-967, 1996

[46] Self-Sustained Replication Of An RNA Enzyme by Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce, ScienceExpress, DOI: 10.1126/science.1167856 (8th January 2009)

[47] The Origin Of Replicators And Reproducers by Eörs Szathmáry, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

[48] Darwinian Evolution On A Chip by Brian M. Paegel and Gerald F. Joyce, Public Library of Science Biology, 6(4): e85 (April 2008)

[49] Formation Of Bimolecular Membranes From Lipid Monolayers And A Study Of Their Electrical Properties by M. Montal and P. Mueller, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 69(12): 3561-3566 (December 1972)

[50] Lipid Bilayer Fibres From Diastereomeric And Enantiomeric N-Octylaldonamides by Jürgen-Hinrich Fuhrhop, Peter Schneider, Egbert Boekema and Wolfgang Helfrich, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 110: 2861-2867 (1988)

[51] Molecular Dynamics Simulation Of The Formation, Structure, And Dynamics Of Small Phospholipid Vesicles by Siewert J. Marrink and Alan E. Mark, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 125: 15233-15242 (2003)

[52] Simulation Of The Spontaneous Aggregation Of Phospholipids Into Bilayers by Siewert J. Marrink, Eric Lindahl, Olle Edholm and Alan E. Mark, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 123: 8638-8639 (2001)

[53] The Lipid World by Daniel Segré, Dafna Ben-Eli, David W. Deamer and Doron Lancet, Origins of Life And Evolution of the Biosphere, 31: 119-145, 2001

[54] Replicating Vesicles As Models Of Primitive Cell Growth And Division by Martin M. Hanczyc and Jack W. Szostak, Current Opinion In Chemical Biology, 8: 660-664 (22nd October 2004)

[55] RNA Catalysis In Model Protocell Vesicles by Irene A Chen, Kourosh Salehi-Ashtiani and Jack W Szostak, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 127: 13213-13219 (2005)

[56] Coevolution Of Compositional Protocells And Their Environment by Barak Shenhav, Aia Oz and Doron Lancet, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 362: 1813-1819 (9th May 2007)

[57] Computational Models For The Formation Of Protocell Structures by Linglan Edwards, Yun Peng and James A. Reggia, Artificial Life, 4(1): 61-77 (1998)

[58] Coupled Growth And Division Of Model Protocell Membranes by Ting F. Zhu and Jack W. Szostak, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 131: 5705-5713 (2009)

[59] Evolution And Self-Assembly Of Protocells by Ricard V. Solé, The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology, 41: 274-284 (2009)

[60] Formation Of Protocell-Like Structures From Glycine And Formaldehyde In A Modified Sea Medium by Hiroshi Yanagawa and Fujio Egami, Proceedings of the Japan Academy, 53: 42-45 (12th January 1977)

[61] Formation Of Protocell-Like Vesicles In A Thermal Diffusion Column by Itay Budin, Raphael J. Bruckner and Jack W. Szostak, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 131: 9628-9629 (2009)

[62] Generic Darwinian Selection In Catalytic Protocell Assemblies by Andreea Munteanu, Camille Stephan-Otto Attolini, Steen Rasmussen, Hans Ziock and Ricard V. Solé, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 362: 1847-1855 (2007)

[63] Kin Selection And Virulence In The Evolution Of Protocells And Parasites by Steven A. Frank, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Part B, 258: 153-161 (1994)

[64] Nutrient Uptake By Protocells: A Liposome Model System by Pierre-Alain Monnard and David W. Deamer, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 31: 147-155 (2001)

[65] Synchronisation Phenomena In Internal Reaction Models Of Protocells by Roberto Serra, Timoteo Carletti, Alessandro Filisetti and Irene Poli, Artificial life, 13: 123-128 (2007)

[66] Synchronisation Phenomena In Protocell Models by Alessandro Filisetti, Roberto Serra, Timoteo Carletti, Irene Poli and Marco Villani, Biophysical Reviews and Letters, 3(1-2): 325-342 (2008)

[67] Synthetic Protocell Biology: From Reproduction To Computation by Ricard V. Solé, Andreea Munteanu, Carlos Rodriguez-Caso and Javier Macia, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 362: 1727-1739 (October 2007)

[68] Template-Directed Synthesis Of A Genetic Polymer In A Model Protocell by Sheref S. Mansy, Jason P. Schrum, Mathangi Krisnamurthy, Sylvia Tobé, Douglas A. Treco and Jack W. Szostak, Nature, 454: 122-125 (4th June 2008)

[69] The Emergence Of Competition Between Model Protocells by Irene A Chen, Richard W. Roberts and Jack W. Szostak, Science, 305:1474-1476 (3rd September 2004)

[70] Thermostability Of Model Protocell Membranes by Sheref S. Mansy and Jack W. Szostak, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(36): 13351-13355 (9th September 2008)

Have fun wading through that list of scientific papers.


Thank you for informing me of the composition of DNA, but that’s still ignoring why the nucleotides are in exactly the order they need to be to make functional proteins.

Um, you can’t have evolution without DNA, so how does evolution build DNA? From RNA? Where did the information in the RNA come from? You still have not addresses how the right information came from chance processes. Just because the chemistry is there doesn’t explain why the chemistry is perfectly organized.

Yeah ask any real scientist and they’ll tell you how much that makes sense. You’ve got billions of letters of information in the right order, but just throw a bunch of letters together for long enough and you’ll get it. That’s not how it works.

I don’t. A true Christian is someone who gives their life to Jesus; there’s nothing else to it.

Uh no, that’s called humans being stupid and fighting over unimportant things. In the grand sceme of things, things like denomination and baptism are minor issues if you are still rooted in Jesus; just because people fight over something doesn’t mean it’s important. Humans have started wars over some pretty stupid things over the years.

For one, how else was he going to do it? It’s not like they had Youtube back then. Two, it was tradition in many cultures for people who could read to stand up and read to people who couldn’t. So God recorded the information in a book, but used people to spread the message orally. Considering the Bible is still preserved until today I think he did a pretty good job.

@MrDawn Those verses you quotes were a bunch of laws to an nation 3000 years ago. Why would we have to follow them now? God gave those laws to his people because he wanted them to stay righteous unlike the other nations around them. If the punishment for cursing your dad was death, what would you do? You wouldn’t curse your dad if you’re smart lol. That’s the point here. These laws, although harsh, were nothing campared to what happened in other nations at the time. In other nations, such as the cananites, burning children alive was a common, accepted process. God was trying to keep his people from certain from such evil by keeping them from immorality. We see later in the Old Testament that when Isael breaks the laws God gave, they eventually fell into as terrible a practice as child sacrifice.

Clearly stated: these are God’s given laws to the specific cirumstances of Israel thousands of years ago. They are not commands to us Christians today. The entire Old Testament is essentially the story of how God set the stage for Jesus.

Whatever you say champ. :wink:

Preserved? You mean altered, translated, re translated, Added to, portions deleted, then margin notes added to the main body, entire texts removed, declared anathema, added, bowdlerised, re-instated, interpreted…oh, that unchanging message from your god of choice?

You really are not very good at history are you. As Callissea says, maybe repeating some grade school subjects to enable a proper grasp of the subject you are arguing might help your thought processes.


Gosh… Geee… Hmmm… :thinking::thinking::thinking:… That’s a tough one. Now, keep in mind, I’m not exactly an all-knowing/ALL-POWERFUL god, but I’m just gonna take a stab at this anyway. But, perhaps… maybe… possibly… that ALL-POWERFUL god could have simply implanted the information he wanted known into the minds of his precious human pets that he loved soooooo much? Or, hey, if THAT was too difficult for your all-powerful god, the least he could have done was give EVERYBODY the ability to read. Or was that also too difficult a task for the being that created the entire universe? Because we all know that those who DID HAVE the ability to read would NEVER EVER EVER take advantage of, or abuse, that power they had over those who could not read. Godly people wouldn’t do such a horrible thing.

Preserved?.. Well, that’s ONE WAY of putting it, I suppose. Question: Are you willfully ignorant, or are you simply oblivious to the fact that?.. 1. An actual BIBLE did not come into existence until hundreds of years after the supposed “death” of a supposed “Jesus” character… And 2. Countless rulers and church officials over the course of CENTURIES were constantly revising/editing and adding/subtracting different books of “God’s Perfect Words” to fit the agenda of the ruling classes of that time period.

I ask you this because you are making it sound as though you believe the “Holy Bible” as you NOW know it just suddenly “poofed into existence” as-is around two thousand years ago. Yikes! :flushed:

Tsk-tsk-tsk… Wiggle-wiggle, little worm. Nope. The “Holy Bible” was written to be the instruction book for Mankind to follow until the final days of The Rapture. Just ask any True Christian other than the True Christians of your particular Christian faith. The only reason many Christians of today do not follow the bible to its full extent is because those damn pesky man-made laws would end up putting them in prison. Even WITH those annoying man-made laws, though, it still doesn’t stop some of the REAL TRUE FAITHFUL Christians from burning witches and putting homosexuals to death. I can only imagine how bummed out you must be if you are not allowed to do that wherever you live.


This is a variant and combination of the anthropocentric principe, the anthropic principle, and Douglas Adams’ puddle analogy;

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’

You assume the proteins DNA codes for are the only proteins that are functional, and that only the nucleotide ordering we observe today can code for functional proteins. You also assume that evolution has had the current DNA/RNA encoding as a goal. This is a fallacy, in that other proteins can do the same or a similar job, and other nucleotide orderings can do similar jobs. The DNA/RNA encodings we observe today are only one out of many possibilities for sustaining self-replicating life.

Thus, your argument is moot.

1 Like

Historically, the best reason is you wouldn’t be here otherwise. this of course isn’t an opinion its a proven and provable fact.

Can you give an example of the contrary situation? Us being here is a proof of us being here, not the proof of your favourite deity.

1 Like


I know you feel like you are doing a valiant thing, but you are not

You don’t. Neither do you understand very much about science. And that is okay until you try speaking as an authority.

Perhaps, if you tried coming to this forum as someone who wishes to learn, rather than teach; discuss, rather than preach-- you would actually find refinement, rather than hostility.

1 Like

His world is hostile.

The information or worldview a person adopts creates their perceptions. The brain filters it to fit their “belief”. He has also set a standard for evidence that is laughable and inconsistent.

Everyone is the hero in their internal life-story.


@Whitefire13 I agree with you. And whether he likes it or not, the fact still remains that his beliefs have already been refined by critical examination and the contrasting opinions of others:

He has spent 2 days attempting to correlate scientific certainties with the ideologies that he was raised in. The result of that sort of amalgamation is usually some manner of personal growth.

The fact that he is arguing the validity of evolution, and trying to find evidence of God in human DNA means he is thinking in new and interesting ways. He is thinking outside of his own box.

I think that is good, albeit inaccurate.
My problem is not that he has made himself into some sort of self-proclaimed hero, it is that he is also speaking as if he is an authority and a spokesperson on subjects that he has already proven that he knows very little about.

He doesn’t have to lose his faith to learn something about it. Everyone, even within the boundaries of their own cultural or societal classifications thinks in their own, unique way. It is my humble opinion that we all have something to offer each other, even in contrast.

I’ve already learned a lot here just by asking questions and researching the answers I was provided.

@Cr2187 is approaching his discourse as an antagonist, and in the course of 2 days has spent more time arguing evolution than he has about anything else.

If his mission is Jesus-- as he has previously alluded to, he is way off track.

Talk, talk, talk, where is the physical evidence. mine is provided. You can’t disprove it, your friends can’t disprove it, your scientist can’t disprove it. The real question here is until you prove I AM WRONG (and you can’t or you already would have). Everything else you say, no one can trust. My case is as different as the Earth and the Sky, as mine is The Proof, of my God. Here all see, you asked for proof, and proof was provided and you ran! Incredibly, Scientist did the very same thing, because like you the only thing they ever had was their prejudice, bias or beliefs alone. heck, even under definition your beliefs are lies!
Merriam Webster:definition of belief
1 a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing ;her belief in God, a belief in democracy!

2 something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed an individual’s religious or political beliefs especially : a [tenet]

I got you by the short hairs bud. Cause mine isn’t a belief as I have proven mine is REALITY and defined that means.
Merriam Webster:Definition of reality
1**:** the quality or state of being real

2a(1): a real event, entity, or state of affairs his dream became a reality

(2): the totality of real things and events trying to escape from reality

b**:** something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily

So run, but you can’t hide, and your words … useless as they remain delusions alone, Mine are the state of the real. God is proven to mankind,atheist are doomed, and now disproven AS a religion, but … only the first of many!

See, the difference is among all the alleged and believed gods, i have the only real God, because I proved it, and get this … with your science!

You Atheist talk a great talk, but faced with a Real Christian whom is armed with the Holy Word AND The physical proof to back it up, and you shrivel up and die.
that’s so sad:(

I do not have to. You are the one asserting all kinds of crazy shit. It is incumbent on you to prove your claims.

I do not have to prove you wrong, you must prove your case. That is the rational default position when presented with a claim.