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

[Angrboda]

Oh noes! He crossed the streams. Run for the hills!

[pineapplebunnybounce]

RNA have catalytic properties ... duh. So they do not need proteins to function. They don't even need to function, just survive long enough to replicate.

The fact that you're asking for RNA sequences says a lot about your ignorance of genetics.

An RNA sequence is needed to make proteins. It must be an exact sequence else the protein will not work.

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?

[Brakeman]

I am pressed for time right now as I have to leave for work. But if I must, I can spoon feed you the basic biology answers to your questions when I get back. If I go to that much trouble though, I'd like you to first answer my questions: Were you home schooled and if not, did you pay any attention whatsoever in biology class?

And an additional question: did you ever attend a decent university?

If that was directed to me, yes, University of TN, Knoxville, and USM. Also took courses at LMU and Pell. state.

[Esquilax]

And an additional question: did you ever attend a decent university?

If that was directed to me, yes, University of TN, Knoxville, and USM. Also took courses at LMU and Pell. state.

I think it was an add-on to your question about home schooling, but it's interesting how easily a real person like you decided to answer, and yet the creationist muppet is still keeping mum about it...

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

An RNA sequence is needed to make proteins. It must be an exact sequence else the protein will not work.

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?

---

How many different proteins did that 1st living creature have?

What was their sequence?

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?

[Esquilax]

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?

What are the scientific underpinnings of how creationism works?

Go on: explain to me the methodology by which god's special creation functions, since you're so into wanting to find out about everything.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

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.

No they don't.

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

fats

How are they even read correctly?

I didn't say they were read.

I noticed you said theoretically.
What does that mean?

the·o·ret·i·cal
/THēəˈretikəl/
Adjective[/quote]
Based on or calculated through theory rather than experience or practice: "a theoretical reformer of opinions".
Synonyms
theoretic - academic - academical - speculative

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

There is no such field as "atheistic origin science." The scientific method is not atheistic. It's a tool. Tools don't have beliefs.

I study the evolutionary molecular genetics of microbes, and I'll tell you an absolute fact: we do not know what the first living creature looked like. We can speculate that its genome was RNA-based, but we can't know that for sure because we don't have access to the first living creature. Scientists like to speculate about what it looked like, and to try to come up with testable hypotheses. It is pretty clear that DNA evolved from RNA, which would tend to indicate that the first organisms were RNA based. We are just learning to read molecular "fossils" in genomes, and the field is expanding. Will we know someday? Maybe, maybe not. If you want to insert your god into that gap, OK. Not very useful in the lab, but it's your life.

That is the true answer to your question.


*One of the authors in the link, Patrick Forterre (of the Pasteur Institute), is particularly well-regarded in this field. His papers are really fun, informative, and well-written.

I just call it atheistic because God is not allowed to invoked.

Thank you for the information. I already knew that the first thing was not observed and remains speculation at this point. I also want to thank you for your honest comment that it may never be known.

I just was showing that the answers have yet to be discovered and thus there is no solid proof of abiogenesis.

I may start a topic which will try to get an approximation of the odds of abiogenesis.

[Esquilax]

I just call it atheistic because God is not allowed to invoked.

He's allowed the moment you present evidence that he is at work.

I just was showing that the answers have yet to be discovered and thus there is no solid proof of abiogenesis.

So where's the solid proof of god?

I may start a topic which will try to get an approximation of the odds of abiogenesis.

I'll have my index of creationist claims at the ready.

Hey, real quick: what's your education level? In case you couldn't tell, I'm not just gonna let that one go.

[Doubting Thomas]

I noticed you said theoretically.
What does that mean?

OMFG, now I'm convinced that you have to be reminded to breathe.

---

I just call it atheistic because God is not allowed to invoked.

And do you know why that is?