Posted on 12/19/2002 5:57:50 AM PST by forsnax5
Had I thought of that term, I think I would have removed two of those letters.
No offense, but evolutionists have the smug attitude of "ours is science while yours is no better than magic, suckers." Well there is some point to that. But if you wrap yourself in a cloak of science you should live by the rules of science, and they say that gaps in the evidence taint your conclusions and cast doubt on them until you fill them. You may not like that, but if you choose to ignore that part of the scientific method then you have abandoned it. As for the "creationoids", they dont have the same burden of proof since they readily acknowledge their worldview is based on faith which cannot be proved or disproved. When scientists take the same attitude, a new religion is founded. So it seems in case of evolution.
From Nature
Using just two bases, Reader and Joyce mimicked the R3 ligase ribozyme, a stretch of RNA that latches onto another RNA molecule. Part of the R3 ribozyme has a base sequence that matches that on its RNA target molecule. The researchers constructed this binding sequence and target from A and U bases alone. Then, for technical reasons, they replaced the A's with a non-natural base called diaminopurine (D). The resultant ribozyme can be copied without the need for G or C bases. Copying is a necessary part of the process of finding a two-letter mimic. The researchers then eliminated all of the G's that they could from the R3 molecule while still retaining some of its catalytic behaviour (it can manage without C's). All but three could go; if the researchers took any of those out, the molecule was no longer catalytic. To get further, the researchers abandoned rational design and turned to in vitro evolution. They replaced the remaining G's at random with U or D, while shuffling a few of the other U's and D's in the molecule. None of the products made this way is a particularly stunning catalyst. But they work. The best, containing just U and D, links to the RNA target 36,000 times faster than in the absence of any catalyst at all. In other words, a two-letter ribozyme is a lot better than nothing. D isn't too difficult to create from the kind of ingredients that were probably available on the early Earth, say Reader and Joyce. They also point out the advantage of an RNA-like molecule that contains no C: cytosine decomposes quite quickly if it gets warm. |
Actually, there is no way to prove that yesterday happened.
All true believers are followers of the Cargo Cult and the Prophet John Frum (Blessing Be Upon Him!), and they know that the Universe was created when it fell out of the cargo hatch of an R4D flying over the Solomon Islands!
Have you ever looked at a magnified view of a snowflake? Very organized (yet rather spontaneous) structure that repeats in small ways that grow into a larger structure.
Crystalization is very definately "chemical" in nature. It has structure, it has reproducibility (from the small scale to the large.) Yet we attribute no magic behind it, no purpose, no goal, no "reader", no "intelligent designer."
DNA and other life forms are really just an ongoing crystalization process, if you will.
Bull.
Thanks for the Biblical quote.
Kind of like claiming that New York city is just a sort of an exxagerated ant colony...
Real experts have noted that RNA and DNA are vastly beyond the level of complexity at which something could just sort of happen.
So, are these "real experts" claiming RNA and DNA didn't happen?
Or are they "experts" in believeing the scientific musings of ancient goat herders?
"At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt
I.L. Cohen, Researcher and Mathematician
Member NY Academy of Sciences
Officer of the Archaeological Inst. of America
Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities
New Research Publications, 1984, p. 4
I gather from reading that mathematicians as a group are less than fond of evolutionism. Something about dealing with logic on a regular basis...
Hmmm, yeah, sounds unanimous. heh heh
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.