bilbo baggins
New member
The naturalistic axiom allows science to do some very interesting things. For example, science has yet to figure out how life originated. Using the naturalistic axiom for justification, this major flaw in evolutionary theory has been quietly swept under the rug. As a result, today very few scientists are involved in origins research and the origin of life will likely remain a mystery.
Perhaps even more interesting, science does not have a plausible explanation for how the first genes and proteins evolved. Instead of sweeping this problem under the rug, they label any scientist who conducts experiments or develops mathematical and computer models to look at this issue a Creationist. This label destroys the scientific credibility of both the scientist and his (or her) ideas and findings.
Natural selection and chance (even given 100 trillion years to operate) do not seem to be able to explain the evolution of the first genes and proteins.
emucompboy....
Energy sources alone do not enable self replication. Without the knowledge to couple an energy source to the process of replication, RNA self replication is like perpetual motion. Because perpetual motion does not exist, any true self replicating molecule (RNA or protein) must know how to use energy sources to replicate. In other words, there is no such thing as a simple self replicating molecule. Read more about the RNA world sir.
.
emucompboy....
Any self replicating RNA molecule that cannot also synthesize activated nucleotides (like ATP or IMPA) will only be able to replicate in a test tube with the help of researchers who supply these nucleotides.
This leads to the conclusion that simple self replicating RNA molecules do not exist and that the RNA world hypothesis should instead be called the myth of the RNA world because it did not exist, and it does not help explain any of the mysteries surrounding the origin of life.
Perhaps even more interesting, science does not have a plausible explanation for how the first genes and proteins evolved. Instead of sweeping this problem under the rug, they label any scientist who conducts experiments or develops mathematical and computer models to look at this issue a Creationist. This label destroys the scientific credibility of both the scientist and his (or her) ideas and findings.
Natural selection and chance (even given 100 trillion years to operate) do not seem to be able to explain the evolution of the first genes and proteins.
emucompboy....
Energy sources alone do not enable self replication. Without the knowledge to couple an energy source to the process of replication, RNA self replication is like perpetual motion. Because perpetual motion does not exist, any true self replicating molecule (RNA or protein) must know how to use energy sources to replicate. In other words, there is no such thing as a simple self replicating molecule. Read more about the RNA world sir.
.
emucompboy....
Any self replicating RNA molecule that cannot also synthesize activated nucleotides (like ATP or IMPA) will only be able to replicate in a test tube with the help of researchers who supply these nucleotides.
This leads to the conclusion that simple self replicating RNA molecules do not exist and that the RNA world hypothesis should instead be called the myth of the RNA world because it did not exist, and it does not help explain any of the mysteries surrounding the origin of life.