Isn't there a major flaw in evolutionary theory?Can't scientists create life

[bilbo baggins]

without help from creation? .



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.


Was there a designer behind RNA &DNA?



.
it looks pretty bad when evolutionists say the beginnings of life has nothing to do with their theory of evolution yet with out lifes beginnings their theory is unusable.

Denying that one has nothing to do with another when they are linked in hypotheses shows arrogance proportionate to ignorance that is perpetuated within the theory its self.

 

[tehabwa]

Uh, why do you put a bunch of blank lines in your post? To make responding to it a huge pain in the @ss?

First, evolution starts AFTER the first self-replicators, so you're just completely wrong that you're talking about evolution at all.

Second, only a completely brainless person thinks that "if scientists haven't completely figured out EVERY detail, then everything they say is false, and impossible notions for which there is NO evidence AT ALL MUST be true."

????? That scientists haven't created a self-perpetuating system of RNA reproduction is NOT evidence of your imaginary Sky Bully -- complete in itself, and unchanging forever, who suddenly decided he WANTED a universe and other beings.

There is NOT reason to think there was a DESIGNER of RNA or DNA. There's overwhelming reason to suppose there wasn't.

Uh, it looks bad to people who have NO CLUE what they're babbling about when people who accept the findings of science speak truth. That's because you REJECT truth.

Evolution is NOT about the ORIGIN of LIFE, but about the diversity of life. Saying that EVOLUTION needs to account for the origin of life is like saying that evolution has to begin at the beginning of the universe.

Evolution posits a universe and Eath, because it isn't concerned with cosmology; it's focuses on what IT is about.

"linked in the hypotheses" makes no sense.

An idiot who is completely ignorant of science, yet is convinced it must be wrong because they are incapable of understanding it is in NO position to call anyone arrogant. As long as you prefer ignorance to knowledge, no SANE person has any reason to take you seriously.

Biology is not astronomy; biology is not physics. Physics isn't biology. Anyone with a functioning brain is capable of grasping this fact.

But, to go back to your "argument" -- "Scientists don't know EVERY DETAIL, therefore, everything they've found out must be false, and an absurd set of completely unsubstantiated insanity MUST be true" is an argument only an arrogant idiot could love.

 

[thundercatt9]

It is amazing to me how something so painstakingly designed is supposed to show that there is no God/Creator!

Edit: Dreamstuff, you may need to update your copy/paste. 1998 is a long time ago when it comes to research.

Edit: On creation vs. evolution debate forums, evolutionists frequently claim that abiogenesis is not a part of evolution. This debate tactic is simply used to avoid the issue because it has never been proven despite repeated attempts under every conceivable circumstance. Every college level course on evolution will address abiogenesis at length, as will any evolutionary biology textbook. Most dedicate an entire chapter to the origin of life.

 

[curious moper]

Objection!

There is a flaw in your logic. Abiogenesis and the spawning of life is not evolution.
The process in which simple organisms evolve into complex organisms in order to match their variable environments and food sources is evolution.

 

[idoubtit]

Yeah it was mother nature fool !

 

[Bryan B]

The roles of ATP and IMPA evolved from early, similar substances formed by the constant lightening strikes, geothermal activity, and solar radiation bathing the organic seas of RNA. There is no nyth, but it is only a theory- spatial contamination from another life point-source with ATP-attached would also have found the environment suitable for replication. Man cannot create life- not yet- and hasn't succeeded. There is a long step from RNA to programmed RNA and proteins and that takes evolution- lots and lots of time. Occam's razor logically implies that only an ominiscient all powerful God could create all the universe and the basic elements thereof as well as us- fascinating isn't it?

 

[Dancefly]

I'm sure you've been told before that there is no connection between the theory of evolution and abiogenesis. But you keep asking the same kinds of questions with the same kinds of mistakes over and over. What do you think that might say about the mentality of creationists?

 

[Mike Hunt]

evolution says nothing about the origin of life, just its diversity, you are not even talking about the correct theory, how can you expect to be taken seriously? when you mistake abiogenesis for evolution.

 

[??????? ? McLo? ???????]

science is still too young.
in a few centuries it will have so much power religion is going to look like a very silly thing to follow
(if it doesn't already look like it)

 

[John quill Quill]

But Ammon stood forth and began to cast stones at them with his sling; yea, with mighty power he did sling stones amongst them; and thus he slew a certain number of them insomuch that they began to be astonished at his power; nevertheless they were angry because of the slain of their brethren, and they were determined that he should fall; therefore, seeing that they could not hit him with their stones, they came forth with clubs to slay him.
37 But behold, every man that lifted his club to smite Ammon, he smote off their arms with his sword; for he did withstand their blows by smiting their arms with the edge of his sword, insomuch that they began to be astonished, and began to flee before him; yea, and they were not few in number; and he caused them to flee by the strength of his arm.
38 Now six of them had fallen by the sling, but he slew none save it were their leader with his sword; and he smote off as many of their arms as were lifted against him, and they were not a few.
39 And when he had driven them afar off, he returned and they watered their flocks and returned them to the pasture of the king, and then went in unto the king, bearing the arms which had been smitten off by the sword of Ammon, of those who sought to slay him; and they were carried in unto the king for a testimony of the things which they had done.

 

[S. Chandra]

Researchers supplying the nucleotides is simply an effective way to speed up the process of nucleotides landing there by chance. It doesn't mean that there was necessarily someone who had to place the RNA and DNA nucleotides there in nature. Though this may be a possibility, one also has to think of the favouritism involved in this idea. Why should the the universe, God, or whoever else the designer may be, specify this place among others in our immediate galaxy? This is not to say that there may not be life elsewhere, but merely to state that why here specifically? The universe is so vast and contains so many possibilities of placement, the very fact that life is here becomes more of a probability than a decision. Life (if it were placed) just so happened to be placed as we know it. And ultimately everything keys back to chance. The potential for life is on earth by chance, from that DNA and RNA developed by chance, from that life developed by chance. One could say that these events in order are a very very minuscule chance as well, but we too are very very minuscule in terms of the entire universe. Is it not fitting that a smaller section has a greater ability of expressing a more difficult probability?

As for your statement about arrogance: If one claims another is arrogant, that assumes that one knows of someone in the universe who is not arrogant. Otherwise, how would anyone know what arrogance is? Yes, scientists may be arrogant at times, but they are no more sure of the universe in its purest essence than any creationist thinker is. Thus, creationism shows just as much arrogance as science. Then I suppose the only difference would be contemporary pragmatism. Creationism may have been pragmatic during the time it was conceived, but things have changed since then. Humanity has changed and with it, our sense of pragmatism. The fundamental rules of nature are always constant, but we view them differently. I guess what I'm saying is, think of evolution as "neo-creationism" in a sense. It's the theory that fits the times. Who knows, perhaps in the future, creationism will fit our contemporary knowledge. But, from what we "know" currently, evolution is our most logical bet.

And yes, it is abiogenesis, not evolution that is "truly" being discussed, but it doesn't matter what theory one refutes as long as one has a meaningful question. I enjoyed answering this question. Good thinking, but logic takes us a bit farther than simply creationism.