Science, Creation & EvolutionAbiogenesisI've been away for a few days, but I'm back again. Abiogenesis is the idea that the living matter (life forms) we see today (and in the fossil record) came from matter that would be considered 'non-living'. There is a big step between the 'first DNA' and dead molecules. We have observed that molecules can form more complex molecules, but we have not (yet?) found 'transitional' fossils between the first cells and non-living matter. These 'nanno-bacteria' could very well form the 'missing link' between eary life and non-life. Consider these quotes: This could be the similar self-replicator that would become RNA and later on DNA as theories suggest. This would also mean that no god was needed to create life, since it evolved on its own.. ----- I think you are confusing two different things. I was not talking about aboriginals. ---- I linked the original text for everybody to read. I quoted a few sentences to let the readers know what the article was about. It was not some evil scheme of mine to trick people into rejecting god Then why are they replicating in THIS form? If they were leftovers they'd be dead, but scientists believe they have observed replication in these 'things'. And IF -as you write- the process of replication is not limited to DNA, then this would only support the idea that replicators predated DNA. The 'missing link' has been non-DNA that could make offspring, and that is what we might have found here... I placed the link KNOWING that there is a lot of controversy about the subject. I'm hoping for a discussion. The word 'abiogenensis' has appeared over and over again in discussions here, so I thought this article might shed some new light on the topic. The biggest problem has always been 'where did that first cell come from?', and this article offers a possibility. ----- On My Way: The 'early definition' of life was not discarded, it was improved by introducing DNA to the defintion. It would seem however that the 'improvement' limits our defintion too much. We think that life MUST HAVE DNA to be a life form, but we see 'things' that do not have DNA perform the actions of life forms. At least, that's how some people interpret the data. What kind of statements? Critically examining your own theories and drawing the conclusion that you might not have been 100% correct? I wish christians actually DID examined their 'theories' critically. At least science is willing to alter their theories if they do not described nature accurately... Christians on the other hand have information (the bible) and 'assume' that nature confirms what their books say. Which of course it doesn't: Geocentrism is probably the most striking example of inexterminable ignorance. Copernicus (1473-1543) had already discovered that the earth is not the center of the universe, but certain Creationists have ignored this FACT for more then 500 years. Not all Creationists believe in a 'fixed earth' but no form of biblical creationism can be objective in my view, for the sole reason that data can (and DOES) contradict the bible, but no creationist is willing to accept that the bible is incorrect. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame