Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)

[TheBeardedDude]

That's not the point I was talking about at all. RNA have catalytic properties, so the replicable chain doesn't need proteins to replicate, theoretically.

---

SBG, what is the exact sequence of your dna?

What?

Of course they do.

How would they even be protected during the so called replication?
How are they even read correctly?

I noticed you said theoretically.
What does that mean?

---

None, it was a protein-based lifeform.

And it was not conscious or sentient either. The first "life" on Earth would have been largely indistinguishable from a redox reaction. With the minor exception of self-replication.

---

If the idea that you descended from apes and other animals ruffles your feathers, understand that you are ultimately the descendant of a chemical reaction (specifically a redox reaction).

Then how many different proteins were there?
How many of each?
What were the amino acid sequences?
What are the odds that that even formed?
How did it evolve to RNA and DNA?
What are the odds of that?

No proteins until life had advanced to the point of synthesizing proteins, so 0.

"How many of each?"
irrelevant question as there were no proteins because this wasn't protein-based "life"

"What were the amino acid sequences?"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...185848.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...134341.htm

Primitive amino acids are still encoded within the genetic sequence of all lifeforms, but each phyla and taxon has built upon it. Meaning you have to get back to the original retroactively.

"What are the odds that that even formed?"

>0
Actually, as life developed on Earth, the odds are 1

"How did it evolve to RNA and DNA?"

Natural selection

"What are the odds of that?"

1 again.