Simpler times: Did an earlier genetic molecule predate DNA and RNA?

Jan 09, 2012 by Richard Harth
The nucleic acid TNA may have acted as a precursor molecule to DNA and RNA, bearing genetic information and performing important biological functions. Photo: Public domain

(PhysOrg.com) -- In the chemistry of the living world, a pair of nucleic acids—DNA and RNA—reign supreme. As carrier molecules of the genetic code, they provide all organisms with a mechanism for faithfully reproducing themselves as well as generating the myriad proteins vital to living systems.

Yet according to John Chaput, a researcher at the Center for Evolutionary Medicine and Informatics, at Arizona State University’s Biodesign Institute®, it may not always have been so. 

Chaput and other researchers studying the first tentative flickering of life on earth have investigated various alternatives to familiar genetic molecules. These chemical candidates are attractive to those seeking to unlock the still-elusive secret of how the first life began, as primitive molecular forms may have more readily emerged during the planet’s prebiotic era.

One approach to identifying molecules that may have acted as genetic precursors to RNA and is to examine other nucleic acids that differ slightly in their chemical composition, yet still possess critical properties of self-assembly and replication as well as the ability to fold into shapes useful for biological function.

According to Chaput, one interesting contender for the role of early genetic carrier is a molecule known as TNA, whose arrival on the primordial scene may have predated its more familiar kin. A nucleic acid similar in form to both DNA and RNA, TNA differs in the sugar component of its structure, using threose rather than deoxyribose (as in DNA) or ribose (as in RNA) to compose its backbone.

In an article released online today in the journal , Chaput and his group describe the Darwinian evolution of functional TNA molecules from a large pool of random sequences. This is the first case where such methods have been applied to molecules other than DNA and RNA, or very close structural analogues thereof. Chaput says “the most important finding to come from this work is that TNA can fold into complex shapes that can bind to a desired target with high affinity and specificity”.  This feature suggests that in the future it may be possible to evolve TNA enzymes with functions required to sustain early life forms.

Nearly every organism on earth uses DNA to encode chunks of genetic information in genes, which are then copied into RNA. With the aid of specialized enzymes known as polymerases, RNA assembles amino acids to form essential proteins. Remarkably, the basic functioning of the genetic code remains the same, whether the organism is a snail or a senator, pointing to a common ancestor in the DNA-based microbial life already flourishing some 3.5 billion years ago. 

Nevertheless, such ancestors were by this time quite complex, leading some scientists to speculate about still earlier forms of self-replication. Before DNA emerged to play its dominant role as the design blueprint for life, a simpler genetic world dominated by RNA may have prevailed. The RNA world hypothesis as it’s known alleges that ribonucleic acid (RNA) acted to store genetic information and catalyze chemical reactions much like a protein enzyme, in an epoch before DNA, RNA and proteins formed the integrated system prevalent today throughout the living world.

While the iconic double helix of DNA is formed from two complimentary strands of nucleotides, attached to each other by base pairing in a helical staircase, RNA is single-stranded. The two nucleic acids DNA and RNA are named for the type of sugar complex that forms each molecule’s sugar-phosphate backbone—a kind of molecular thread holding the nucleotide beads together.

Could a simpler, self-replicating molecule have existed as a precursor to RNA, perhaps providing genetic material for earth’s earliest organisms? Chaput’s experiments with the nucleic acid TNA provide an attractive case. To begin with, TNA uses tetrose sugars, named for the four-carbon ring portion of their structure. They are simpler than the five-carbon pentose sugars found in both DNA and RNA and could assemble more easily in a prebiotic world, from two identical two-carbon fragments.

This advantage in structural simplicity was originally thought to be an Achilles’ heel for TNA, making its binding behavior incompatible with DNA and RNA. Surprisingly, however, research has now shown that a single strand of TNA can indeed bind with both DNA and RNA by Watson-Crick base pairing—a fact of critical importance if TNA truly existed as a transitional molecule capable of sharing information with more familiar that would eventually come to dominate life.

In the current study, Chaput and his group use an approach known as molecular evolution to explore TNA’s potential as a genetic biomolecule. Such work draws on the startling realization that fundamental Darwinian properties—self-replication, mutation and selection—can operate on non-living chemicals.

Extending this technique to TNA requires polymerase enzymes that are capable of translating a library of random DNA sequences into TNA. Once such a pool of TNA strands has been generated, a process of selection must successfully identify members that can perform a given function, excluding the rest. As a test case, the team hoped to produce through molecular evolution, a TNA strand capable of acting as a high-specificity, high-affinity binding receptor for the human protein thrombin.

They first attempted to demonstrate that TNA nucleotides could attach by complementary base pairing to a random sequence of DNA, forming a hybrid DNA-TNA strand. A DNA polymerase enzyme assisted the process. Many of the random sequences, however, contained repeated sections of the guanine nucleotide, which had the effect of pausing the transcription of DNA into TNA. Once random DNA libraries were built excluding guanine, a high yield of DNA-TNA hybrid strands was produced.

The sequences obtained were 70 nucleotides in length, long enough Chaput says, to permit them to fold into shapes with defined binding sites. The DNA-TNA hybrids were then incubated with the target molecule thrombin. Sequences that bound with the target were recovered and amplified through PCR. The DNA portion was removed and used as a template for further amplification, while the TNA molecules displaying high-affinity, high specificity binding properties were retained.

Additionally, the binding affinity of the evolved and selected TNA molecules was tested against two other common proteins, for which they displayed no affinity, strengthening the case that a highly specific binding molecule had resulted from the group’s directed evolution procedure.

Chaput suggests that issues concerning the prebiotic synthesis of ribose sugars and the non-enzymatic replication of RNA may provide circumstantial evidence of an earlier genetic system more readily produced under primitive earth conditions. Although solid proof that TNA acted as an RNA precursor in the prebiotic world may be tricky to obtain, Chaput points to the allure of this molecule as a strong candidate, capable of storing information, undergoing selection processes and folding into tertiary structures that can perform complex functions. This result provides the motivation to explore TNA as an early genetic system.

Chaput is optimistic that major questions about the prebiotic synthesis of TNA, its role in the origin and early evolution of life on earth, and eventual genetic takeover by will, over time, be answered.

Explore further: Jumping hurdles in the RNA world

More information: "Darwinian evolution of an alternative genetic system provides support for TNA as an RNA progenitor", DOI: 10.1038/nchem.1241

Related Stories

RNA reactor could have served as a precursor of life

Jul 11, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Nobody knows quite how life originated on Earth, but most scientists agree that living cells did not abruptly appear from nonliving cells in a single step. Instead, there were probably a series ...

Closing a loophole in the RNA World Hypothesis

Jan 15, 2007

New scientific research may close a major loophole in the RNA world hypothesis, the idea that ribonucleic acid -- not the fabled DNA that makes up genes in people and other animals -- was the key to life's emergence on Earth ...

DNA constraints control structure of attached macromolecules

Jun 28, 2005

A new method for manipulating macromolecules has been developed by researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The technique uses double-stranded DNA to direct the behavior of other molecules. In previous ...

Recommended for you

Jumping hurdles in the RNA world

Nov 21, 2014

Astrobiologists have shown that the formation of RNA from prebiotic reactions may not be as problematic as scientists once thought.

New computer model sets new precedent in drug discovery

Nov 18, 2014

A major challenge faced by the pharmaceutical industry has been how to rationally design and select protein molecules to create effective biologic drug therapies while reducing unintended side effects - a challenge that has ...

Finding new ways to make drugs

Nov 18, 2014

Chemists have developed a revolutionary new way to manufacture natural chemicals and used it to assemble a scarce anti-inflammatory drug with potential to treat cancer and malaria.

User comments : 117

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

irjsiq
1 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2012
quote:"...Such work draws on the startling realization that fundamental Darwinian propertiesself-replication, mutation and selectioncan operate on non-living chemicals."
and: "...groups directed evolution procedure."
Was it the 'Chaput Group'...directing evolution procedure; alluded to? If not, who/what determined the 'directed' evolutionary procedure.
"Instinct", a word we toss about as though such extensive and complex activities, required No Thought!
"Instincts?
"They were just THERE!"
Perhaps we should 'rethink' THOUGHT!
Remove 'thought' from Humans, considering themselves as Galileo's iniquitous hypothesis, as to consider the 'Earth' revolved around 'the Sun'!
To my awareness, 'Lichens' established the earliest Known, and incredibly Beneficial*, 'Symbiosis'. Why/How did they do that, without 'thought' ???
Roy J Stewart,
Phoenix AZ
*Together, they harvest vital elements from ?solid? rock! Amazingly Silent ... No Dynamite!
Infinite Fractal Consciousness
4.5 / 5 (11) Jan 10, 2012
@irjsic:
Evolution is a remarkably ordinary property of matter over time. If a configuration of matter assembles other matter into a similar configuration, then... it does. If it doesn't, then... it doesn't. Over time, the successful configurations can become quite numerous, complex, and varied. Evolution is not a strategy or a tool or a goal, it's just a property of matter over time.
Vienna
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 10, 2012
"nucleic acid TNA" This is what they were studying.

The incredible, arrogant, myopic stupidity about all these studies looking to postulate how life got started from chemicals in a sea, is ALL OF THESE COMPONENTS are THEMSELVES PRODUCED BY LIFE!

No matter how you divvy up the components in DNA and RNA and try to take the "brains" out of them so that you can reduce them to random chemicals floating in a "prebiotic" world it is a LIE.

Sugar chains and carbon chains as found in all living cells are NOT NATURALLY OCCURRING HAPPENSTANCE!

They are assembled by an organism that needs incredibly complex instructions whether a slug a whale or a man. It is a super-intelligent CODE. It rises above "nature", it so utterly supersedes "evolution" in the fact that while we are deluded into thinking that it is so "easy" for evolution to "evolve" a poodle from a wolf, using already encoded capabilities, the further back you go down the cellular chain the infinitely MORE DIFFICULT it becomes!
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (11) Jan 10, 2012
TWhy/How did they do that, without 'thought' ???
They are not the first. Lichen contain two kinds of organisms and one those is already symbiotic, the fungus has mitochondrial DNA like all eukaryotes and all eukaryotes are thus symbiotic.

Thought is not needed. It wasn't planned. Two organism combined and the pairing worked. That improved the survivability of both so it continued and the two organisms evolved in tandem.

Most likely the fungus engulfed a bacteria that managed to avoid being digested and thus was able to survive.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 10, 2012
Vienna do you have any evidence to support all that?

No matter how you divvy up the components in DNA and RNA and try to take the "brains" out of them so that you can reduce them to random chemicals floating in a "prebiotic" world it is a LIE.
Now that is a lie. There are no 'brains' in DNA or RNA.

You clearly don't have clue about how evolution works.

They are trying to figure out how life started. Since we do not yet know how RNA might have came to be without life making it they are trying to study TNA which is simpler. A perfectly reasonable thing to do and frothing at the PC isn't going to make it unreasonable.

Would you care to tell us how YOU think life started? Do you have the guts or do you just rant about it?

Ethelred
irjsiq
1 / 5 (7) Jan 11, 2012
Vienna do you have any evidence to support all that?

Would you care to tell us how YOU think life started? Do you have the guts or do you just rant about it?

Ethelred
/

Ethelred, Try thinking like an Atom!
Humankind seems to consider 'itself' 'The Pinnacle Of ALL. Additionally, I read recently that of the 20 Trillion ?cells?, which 'compose' We Anthropods, only about 10% belong to humans!
No proof of that either, though it is not beyond my realm of consideration.
'Evolution', trying to find something that 'fits'! Why? Why try? What could be source of 'motivation'? 'Survival'? and why try to survive?
Recently, I have considered that 'Thought' preceded 'Matter'! reference 'The Gordian Knot'; 'untying' The Gordian Knot, would require significant patience, and ?intelligence???
and The one who 'tied' such a Knot, must have been both 'patient' and 'intelligent' . . . To Undo such, I would search for an end, or ends; and work from that/those.

Roy J Stewart,
Phoenix AZ
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 12, 2012
Ethelred, Try thinking like an Atom!
I should stop thinking?

Humankind seems to consider 'itself' 'The Pinnacle Of ALL.
Why do you think I am cursed with that sort of thought?

No proof of that either, though it is not beyond my realm of consideration.
Clearly you didn't understand that. Those cells are small. They are bacteria. We have about 27 pounds IIRC of bacteria in each of us. The ten percent is by cell count not weight.

'Evolution', trying to find something that 'fits'! Why?
I don't know why you asked that. I suspect the answer is you don't know a thing about evolution as the science shows that there is no trying going on.

Why try? What could be source of 'motivation'?
There is no try. So quit asking why there is trying going on when there isn't such a thing.

Get a book on evolution. You don't seem to know the first thing.

'Survival'? and why try to survive?
Go slit your wrists and then ask the question again.>>
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2012
If you do it we will have a fine example of evolution in action.

I don't actually recommend that you try this. Think about the result and the opposite. Will there be something alive or not. Why would something dead do anything on its own?

Recently, I have considered that 'Thought' preceded 'Matter'!
Why? How? And did you actually consider it or was as oddly considered as the questions you just asked?

The Gordian Knot, would require significant patience
No. Just knowing where the person that tied it hid the ends would do the trick.

The one who 'tied' such a Knot, must have been both 'patient' and 'intelligent'
Not really. They still make that kind of knot in the former Anatolia today. It's an art form there.

I recommend that you read Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker. Its a good start on understanding evolution despite being a bit old these days. Darwin is not a good place to start. I still have not finished it myself and my copy is rather old now.

Ethelred
Deathclock
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2012
The incredible, arrogant, myopic stupidity about all these studies looking to postulate how life got started from chemicals in a sea, is ALL OF THESE COMPONENTS are THEMSELVES PRODUCED BY LIFE!

No matter how you divvy up the components in DNA and RNA and try to take the "brains" out of them so that you can reduce them to random chemicals floating in a "prebiotic" world it is a LIE.

Sugar chains and carbon chains as found in all living cells are NOT NATURALLY OCCURRING HAPPENSTANCE!

They are assembled by an organism that needs incredibly complex instructions whether a slug a whale or a man. It is a super-intelligent CODE. It rises above "nature", it so utterly supersedes "evolution" in the fact that while we are deluded into thinking that it is so "easy" for evolution to "evolve" a poodle from a wolf...


What's with all the nutters, I thought this was a science website? Do I go on your creationist websites and talk about science? No, I don't.
Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (13) Jan 12, 2012
Evolution is not a strategy or a tool or a goal, it's just a property of matter over time.


It's not been shown at all to be a "property of matter over time". It HAS been shown to be a "property of biology over time"....big distinction there.
Deathclock
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 12, 2012
Evolution is not a strategy or a tool or a goal, it's just a property of matter over time.


It's not been shown at all to be a "property of matter over time". It HAS been shown to be a "property of biology over time"....big distinction there.


Evolution just means to change... biological evolution obviously only refers to biological systems.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2012
Recently, I have considered that 'Thought' preceded 'Matter'! reference 'The Gordian Knot'; 'untying' The Gordian Knot, would require significant patience, and ?intelligence???
Alexander hacked through it with his sword which worked fine.
What's with all the nutters, I thought this was a science website? Do I go on your creationist websites and talk about science? No, I don't.
You are naive. Godlovers lurk, just waiting for a scientist to let slip 'we dont know yet' to declare that god did it and we should stop insulting him by looking.

Speaking of which... MM you been on sabbatical? Out wandering the wilderness maybe? Set any bushes on fire?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (11) Jan 12, 2012
Evolution just means to change... biological evolution obviously only refers to biological systems.


Then why not say that? The implication is that matter qua matter has some inherent property to produce biology. This hasn't been shown to be the case.
Deathclock
3.5 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2012
Evolution just means to change... biological evolution obviously only refers to biological systems.


Then why not say that?


I didn't say it, I can only guess why someone else would use the world "evolution" when referring to non-biological evolution... perhaps to intentionally obfuscate I don't know.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2012
IMO the RNA molecules evolved as a surfactant molecules of the aminoacids basis and sugars, adsorbed at the surface of micelles. The micelles itself have rudimentary memory, because their content is preserved during splitting of droplets. http://aetherwave...ife.html We can imagine, such droplets were precipitated from waves of ancient lakes at places, where organic compounds were pre-concentrated by wind and solar radiation and they were thrown at coast surface, covered by various surfactants. The droplets are attracted to them, so they started to climb around coast, collecting these materials in their cells. The most successful droplets become so large by such way, they fragmented into smaller ones under impact of next breaker wave, and whole process has repeated many times. Blastulation can be considered as a rudiment of this process by now. http://focus.aps..../v15/st7
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (11) Jan 12, 2012
I didn't say it,


I know that, neither did IFC...which was my entire point.

I can only guess why someone else would use the world "evolution" when referring to non-biological evolution... perhaps to intentionally obfuscate I don't know.


Again that was my initial inference...
irjsiq
1 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2012
concerning 'Evolution':
Other than 'Anthropods, has any population of a 'Vertebrate Species', the size of humans, ever came close to or exceeded One Billion in 'living numbers' of their species?
Please comment!
I am most curious!

Roy J Stewart,
Phoenix AZ
Jaeherys
not rated yet Jan 13, 2012
We have about 27 pounds IIRC of bacteria in each of us

The average bacterium weighs about 1 pg (10^-12 g) and humans have on average a total of 10^14 bacteria in/on us. Therefore, on average, aprx. 100 g of our total weight is from bacteria.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2012
MM
t HAS been shown to be a "property of biology over time"....big distinction there.
Biology has been shown to be chemistry only. So it isn't a big distinction.

Long time no posts. Welcome back. Well at least from me.

The implication is that matter qua matter has some inherent property to produce biology. This hasn't been shown to be the case.
We can't seen anything going on except chemistry. So the case has been shown within the limits of observation. Which is the best that can be done.

Deathclock
I didn't say it, I can only guess why someone else would use the world "evolution" when referring to non-biological evolution...
Why shouldn't people us the word for things outside biology? It has never been limited to biology.

Origin of EVOLUTION
Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
First Known Use: 1622
That is rather a bit before Darwin.

Clearly neither of you know that the word has meaning outside of and before biology.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2012
Other than 'Anthropods, has any population of a 'Vertebrate Species', the size of humans, ever came close to or exceeded One Billion in 'living numbers' of their species?
'Anthropods"? Arthropods or anthropoids? A spell checker would help a lot. Mine offered both as alternatives to 'anthropods'.

Insects, spiders, crustaceans aren't vertebrates and Anthropoids most numerous species is clearly us humans by one hell of a lot.

I doubt it. LOOK. OOPS. Well cattle do weigh a lot more.

http://en.wikiped...ology%29

Cattle 1.3 billion, with a total biomass greater than humans. Could be more than a single species but I think the vast majority are all of the same species. I mean, REAL able to interbreed species, not the crap where they count the hairs and call it another species. The chart calls cattle a single species.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2012
herefore, on average, aprx. 100 g of our total weight is from bacteria.
OK I had a high number. After checking yours is low.

http://www.scient...man-ones

All the bacteria living inside you would fill a half-gallon jug; there are 10 times more bacterial cells in your body than human cells, according to Carolyn Bohach, a microbiologist at the University of Idaho (U.I.), along with other estimates from scientific studies
If it had the density of water that would be 4 pounds so over 1.5 kilograms for sure.

We were both off by about one order of magnitude.

Another source
http://answers.go...733.html

It appears that the average human bacterial load is approximately 2 to
9 pounds, depending upon which reference source is consulted. Below
you'll find a variety of sources from which to choose.


Ethelred
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (11) Jan 13, 2012
Biology has been shown to be chemistry only. So it isn't a big distinction.


Biology may be chemistry but it's highly advanced chemistry. We've only recently begun to mimic it and only been able to do so using extant blueprints we find from nature.

If we take your statement "biology is chemistry only" then one can say that when you mix baking soda and vinegar you're making a living thing. The argument doesn't hold.

Long time no posts. Welcome back. Well at least from me.


Thanks! :)

We can't seen anything going on except chemistry. So the case has been shown within the limits of observation. Which is the best that can be done.


This is an oversimplification of the issue IMO.
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 13, 2012
Deathclock
I didn't say it, I can only guess why someone else would use the world "evolution" when referring to non-biological evolution...
Why shouldn't people us the word for things outside biology? It has never been limited to biology.

Origin of EVOLUTION
Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
First Known Use: 1622
That is rather a bit before Darwin.

Clearly neither of you know that the word has meaning outside of and before biology.

Ethelred


What the hell are you talking about, I was the one that told him that evolutions simply means change and that it doesn't only apply to biological evolution...
Deathclock
4 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2012
concerning 'Evolution':
Other than 'Anthropods, has any population of a 'Vertebrate Species', the size of humans, ever came close to or exceeded One Billion in 'living numbers' of their species?


What the hell is an anthropod?

And the answer is yes, there have are and have been plenty of species of animals similar or larger in size than humans with a living population greater than 1 billion.

I don't know what this question has to do with evolution... it seems rather trivial. Humans have developed tools and technologies that put us on top of the food chain and allow us to maximize utilization of natural resources in order to support a very large population. Other animals have not achieved anything even close to the level of utilization of resources that we have and the environment does not readily support huge populations. Basic agriculture alone probably increased the population supported by a given area of land by 100 fold or more.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (11) Jan 13, 2012
Context and consistency within the argument please.

Evolution can simply mean change, but this article is about biological change. An attempt to hijack it into a different context is intellectually dishonest, or an attempt to sneak in a premise under the radar...intentional or not.
Deathclock
4 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2012
If we take your statement "biology is chemistry only" then one can say that when you mix baking soda and vinegar you're making a living thing. The argument doesn't hold.


Biology is a subset of chemistry, but that still makes the statement "biology is only chemistry" accurate. He did not argue that chemistry is only biology, which is what your example would disprove.
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 13, 2012
If we take your statement "biology is chemistry only" then one can say that when you mix baking soda and vinegar you're making a living thing. The argument doesn't hold.


Biology is a subset of chemistry, but that still makes the statement "biology is only chemistry" accurate. He did not argue that chemistry is only biology, which is what your example would disprove.


Fair enough, but it's not simple chemistry. Which is what my argument did show. IOW it does not follow that if you leave chemistry to itself you always get biology.
Deathclock
3.3 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2012
If we take your statement "biology is chemistry only" then one can say that when you mix baking soda and vinegar you're making a living thing. The argument doesn't hold.


Biology is a subset of chemistry, but that still makes the statement "biology is only chemistry" accurate. He did not argue that chemistry is only biology, which is what your example would disprove.


Fair enough, but it's not simple chemistry. Which is what my argument did show. IOW it does not follow that if you leave chemistry to itself you always get biology.


Of course, no argument. Though our very existence is strong evidence that if you leave chemistry to itself you may get biology.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2012
double post...
Henrik
1 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2012
Darwinian evolution is at least partially based on faith. Faith in Darwin's speculation about an event that took place in the distant past. Man is supposed to be the offspring of a single cell through a sequence of intermediate life forms.
The evolution process from cell to intelligent life is non-repeatable and cannot be observed in a controlled environment.

Darwinian evolution therefore remains fundamentally unverifiable. Philosophically speaking, Darwinian evolution should be classified as a form of historical epistemology or inductive reasoning based on indirect evidence. But not as hard science or proven fact, for it lacks the transparency and accessibility of observable and repeatable experiment.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2012
Darwinian evolution therefore remains fundamentally unverifiable.
Uh no. As an entirely physical process it can theoretically be modeled. We have found much evidence through paleontology and the genetic sciences. Eventually we may be able to reconstruct extinct precursors by studying the form and function of fossils alone combined with a thorough knowledge of what life is and how it works.

Your invocation of 'faith' makes you sound suspiciously religionist. Scientists may have faith in their ability to learn more, and theyre not about to decide they will never be able to know what they dont yet know. Like you.
Henrik
1 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2012
As an entirely physical process it can theoretically be modeled.


One can model many things, but that does not make them fact. The scientific method however relies on repeatable experiments. Those are impossible for unique historical events like the evolution of humans.

We have found much evidence through paleontology and the genetic sciences.


That evidence is all indirect. No direct observation of single cell to human evolution has been made.

Eventually we may be able to reconstruct extinct precursors by studying the form and function of fossils alone combined with a thorough knowledge of what life is and how it works.


This is not a scientific statement, but day-dreaming at best.

our invocation of 'faith' makes you sound suspiciously religionist.


No, it was a factual statement. If one it not 100% sure of something, but still believes, that is called faith. You may look it up in the dictionary if you don't believe me.
Henrik
1 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2012
Biology is a subset of chemistry


No, chemistry is just one aspect of biology. But biology is much more than just chemistry. One also does not say that biology is particle physics. There is a reason for the separate domains.

The main one is that there is no clear chemical definition of phenomena like life, sexual reproduction, speech and the self.

If you disagree, perhaps you should go ahead and model them as a chemical reaction schema.
Infinite Fractal Consciousness
5 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2012
Context and consistency within the argument please.

Evolution can simply mean change, but this article is about biological change. An attempt to hijack it into a different context is intellectually dishonest, or an attempt to sneak in a premise under the radar...intentional or not.


I wasn't trying to obfuscate. The article refers to early, pre-DNA biotic evolution. In those early stages there is arguably some gray area where pre-biotic becomes biotic. I wasn't trying to obfuscate, I was merely speaking in generalities. Even in a pre-biotic chemical soup of amino acid precursors, evolution is at work. And by evolution, i don't just mean change, but the self-evident process that chemical reactions that one way or another increase the odds of the same chemical reaction occurring again in the future become more common. That's the underlying concept of evolution. Evolution does not require a cell membrane.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2012
The scientific method however relies on repeatable experiments. Those are impossible for unique historical events like the evolution of humans.
Astronomy is the observation and modeling of phenomena which scientists cannot interact with. They examine evidence of events which have already happened and try to recreate them mathematically.

Repeatability is not a requirement of science.
That evidence is all indirect. No direct observation of single cell to human evolution has been made.
But the process of evolution has, and we continue to examine irrefutable evidence in the fossil and genetic records all the time.
This is not a scientific statement, but day-dreaming at best.
Your dismissal of sciences spectacular success in explaining things is a rejection of reality. I would suggest that this record implies there is nothing which is not explainable.

This is the difference between faith and confidence. We gain confidence in what science can do from what it has already
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2012
The main one is that there is no clear chemical definition of phenomena like life, sexual reproduction, speech and the self.
Not YET although more so than you seem to be aware of. Religionists love the unknown because they can use it to conclude the existance of their superstitious nonsense.

Scientists love the unknown because they are eager to investigate and explain it.

I love it because it makes you guys jump to your silly conclusions which scientists always, sooner or later, disprove.
Henrik
1 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2012
Religionists love the unknown because they can use it to conclude the existance of their superstitious nonsense


The argument was that life equals chemistry. I have given examples of aspects of life that cannot be explained by chemistry alone. If you disagree, then provide evidence to the contrary but barking like a mad dog won't do.
Henrik
1 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2012
Repeatability is not a requirement of science


You are wrong. Repeatability is an essential requirement of science. Any experiment made in isolation is without value until it is confirmed by others. That is why there is peer review and scientists publish their methods. Even in astronomy observations (in the present!) must be confirmed before they are even considered for publication. Clearly you know nothing of the scientific method.
Henrik
1 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2012
But the process of evolution has, and we continue to examine irrefutable evidence in the fossil and genetic records all the time


The process of evolution from molecules to man has not been observed by scientists. To deny that is just being willfully ignorant. The fossil record and DNA analysis can, at best, provide indirect evidence. But to lable that as irrefutable is just foolish. No fossil bones can provide conclusive proof that they are a common ancestor of some other species bones. To say that evolution ever happened according to Darwins theory is definately a faith based statement.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2012
Faith
"...some advocates of faith argue that the proper domain of faith concerns questions which cannot be settled by evidence."

Scientists place their confidence in science based on its ability to explain things. Religionists maintain their faith in superstition despite its inability to explain things.

Science constantly gains, religion constantly loses. The ONLY advantage religion has over science is the ability to explain things NOW, without the work. For most people this is more important than actually being correct.

Science even promises immortality and the absolution of guilt. But for those things to be possible we will first have to get rid of religion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2012
Even in astronomy observations (in the present!) must be confirmed before they are even considered for publication. Clearly you know nothing of the scientific method
You love to jump to conclusions dont you? An unfortunate religious compulsion.

"Reproducibility is different to repeatability, where the researchers repeat their experiment to test and verify their results.

Reproducibility is tested by a replication study, which must be completely independent and generate identical findings, known as commensurate results. Ideally, the replication study should utilize slightly different instruments and approaches"

-There is plenty of confirmation in the science of evolution. There is NONE in any religion. Well, except for this:

"Confirmation is a rite of initiation in Christian churches, normally carried out through anointing and/or the laying on of hands and prayer for the purpose of bestowing the Gift of the Holy Spirit."
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2012
Here you go. I think science has clearly won this discussion:
http://en.wikiped...iability

-Along with an example:

" Numerous other potential ways to falsify evolution have also been proposed.[40] For example, the fact that humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than the great apes offered a testable hypothesis involving the fusion or splitting of chromosomes from a common ancestor. The fusion hypothesis was confirmed in 2005 by discovery that human chromosome 2 is homologous with a fusion of two chromosomes that remain separate in other primates. Extra, inactive telomeres and centromeres remain on human chromosome 2 as a result of the fusion."

-Confirmation.
Henrik
1 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2012
Scientists place their confidence in science based on its ability to explain things. Religionists maintain their faith in superstition despite its inability to explain things


The false dichotomy of faith versus science. Science is always based on faith. For science to exist it has to rely on things it cannot prove. Things like the uniformity of the laws of nature, the reliablity of our memory and senses, our ability to do logical reasoning. These are area's where science needs metaphysics to even come off the ground. That is why Einstein said: science without religion is lame.
Henrik
1 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2012
I think science has clearly won this discussion


Wrong example and refuted long ago. The fact that the human genome 2 resembles parts of ape genomes 12 en 13 does not prove that in the past a common ancestor developed into apes and humans by gene fusion. Gene fusion happens all the time and does not produce new species, so the process is irrelevant for the supposed speciation of humans.

Furthermore, it is a form of begging the question. Only if evolution is presupposed, can this be a valid example. Alternatively, one might argue that the resmeblance is due to common design. Neither of those two hypothesis can ever be tested however.
Henrik
1 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2012
Science even promises immortality and the absolution of guilt.


Promise? That sounds like you have some form of hope in science. But that is irrational. Hope only makes sense in a metaphysical context. Hope and faith in eternal life are immaterial concepts that cannot be part of science, because science is limited to the material domain. Your hope is based on nothing, and I predict now that you will be dead in your grave one day.
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2012
Darwinian evolution is at least partially based on faith.


No it is not /facepalm

The evolution process from cell to intelligent life is non-repeatable and cannot be observed in a controlled environment.


This is completely unnecessary.

Darwinian evolution therefore remains fundamentally unverifiable. Philosophically speaking, Darwinian evolution should be classified as a form of historical epistemology or inductive reasoning based on indirect evidence.


It is based on mountains of DIRECT evidence. You have no idea what the evidence is and I would hazard to guess that your knowledge of evolution is lacking any formal education.

But not as hard science or proven fact, for it lacks the transparency and accessibility of observable and repeatable experiment.


Wrong. Go to school, study evolutionary theory, then get back to me. You don't know anything about it.
Deathclock
4 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2012
But the process of evolution has, and we continue to examine irrefutable evidence in the fossil and genetic records all the time


The process of evolution from molecules to man has not been observed by scientists. To deny that is just being willfully ignorant. The fossil record and DNA analysis can, at best, provide indirect evidence. But to lable that as irrefutable is just foolish. No fossil bones can provide conclusive proof that they are a common ancestor of some other species bones. To say that evolution ever happened according to Darwins theory is definately a faith based statement.


This is just ridiculous. Evolutionary theory has DOZENS of independent lines of evidence that all lead to the exact same conclusion. Furthermore, we do have direct observational evidence, we have seen speciation occur. you have no idea what you are talking about.

I don't teach science in your church don't peddle your religious nonsense on a science website.
Henrik
1 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2012
It is based on mountains of DIRECT evidence


So what is the best direct evidence for molecules to man evolution according to you? Remember we are not talking about polyploidity, resistance to antibiotics, the beaks of finches, wasps, moths and other examples of small genetic variations, but the Darwinian speculation that your intelligence shares purpose and ancestry with an amoeba.
ragarain
1 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2012
oh wow... chromosome fusion... thank you for that, very interesting stuff!
that kinda thing doesn't just happen by "random mutation" though... very intelligent mechanisms involved there!

evolution is irrefutable but not blind (:

***

on another note, do you all remember the article on organic compounds being produced by outer regions of stars? i hope so, because this seems to shed alot of light on "living matter"
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2012
Scientists place their confidence in science based on its ability to explain things. Religionists maintain their faith in superstition despite its inability to explain things


The false dichotomy of faith versus science. Science is always based on faith.
No it is based on a successful track record of a system of discovery which WORKS. Scientists have increasing confidence that it will continue to do so.
For science to exist it has to rely on things it cannot
YET
prove. Things like the uniformity of the laws of nature, the reliablity of our memory and senses, our ability to do logical reasoning. These are area's where science needs metaphysics to even come off the ground.
Except that, since there is no such thing as META-physics, it is actually unnecessary as science proceeds quite well without it.
That is why Einstein said: science without religion is lame.
Einstein was being condescending. He clearly was no religionist.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2012
These are area's where science needs metaphysics to even come off the ground.
And yet... no system which uses the concept 'metaphysics' has ever explained ANY of those things, nor even survived a generation or 2 without been thoroughly discounted and rejected by youngsters in search of things more fashionable and trendy.

Except for religion of course, the discipline which derives its legitimacy solely from its ability to convince dupes that it can give them eternal life. People would believe in just about anything in order to live in paradise forever wouldnt they?

But if and when they sober up they realize that theyre doing things and believing things for this reason only. Religion doesnt explain anything, it doesnt provide anything except a soporific escape FROM reality, not a viable explanation OF it.

Nor does any other variation of META-physics ever foisted. There is no META-physics - only physics. And one day it will explain everything including the god malefaction.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2012
Science is always based on faith.
The science of the last century the more. How long we are keeping the string theory without simple experimental evidence? Thirty years? Forty years? And how long we are using the postulates of general relativity or quantum theory without worrying about their reason and/or actual meaning?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2012
Hope only makes sense in a metaphysical context.
How do you figure? An organism with a brain synthesizes or 'models' a favorable outcome of anticipated alternatives and alters its behavior to facilitate this outcome.

This mechanism aids in survival and is thus selected for. What makes you think 'hope' is anything more than that?
Hope and faith in eternal life are immaterial concepts that cannot be part of science, because science is limited to the material domain.
DEATH are the bars of your cage. Any animal abhors confinement. Only humans can anticipate our growing old and dying and it nags at us. 'The Valley of the Shadow of Death.' The other animals are blissfully unaware of this eventuality. It drives humans crazy however.
Your hope is based on nothing, and I predict now that you will be dead in your grave one day.
Jeez I hope youre wrong.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2012
Darwinian speculation that your intelligence shares purpose and ancestry with an amoeba.
Well it certainly shares a Prime Directive - the 'desire' to survive to reproduce. Ours may be a little more elaborate but the basis of it is certainly recognizable.
kaasinees
1.8 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2012
Yet another title to attract morons. Of course something "predated" DNA and RNA.

evolution doesnt happen only on "living organisms" but on all matter, its called chemistry. You could see it like two stars "fighting" over who gets to be tossed away into a blackhole.
Henrik
1 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2012
There is no META-physics - only physics.


Proof?

There are of course fundamental problems with this position. Usually it is called scientism. Science cannot explain its own underlying assumptions, such as the laws of logic, the orderly nature of the external world, the reliability of our cognitive faculties in knowing the world, and the objectivity of the moral values used in science. Nor can it prove that nothing exists beyond the material. In fact, there are many good reasons to think there is more than matter in the universe.

One good example is the cause of the singularity. Logic tells us that everything that begins to exist, has a cause. Science however cannot present a natural cause for the big bang, because time and space do not exist before the Planck age. Science has to assume that everything just came out of nothing uncaused. But from nothing, nothing comes. The only viable alternative cause for the big bang therefore is immaterial, uncaused and timeless.
Henrik
1 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2012
This mechanism aids in survival and is thus selected for. What makes you think 'hope' is anything more than that?


Hope as some concocted survival mechanism? That would be irrational, and a form of self-delusion. In a naturalistic world events would be either random or deterministic. For a fake thing like hope to emerge would be highly unlikely. It is far more plausible to assume that hope constitutes a real attribute of a universe where immaterial values and laws dominate over matter and chance. Got any proof to the contrary?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2012
There are of course fundamental problems with this position. Usually it is called scientism. Science cannot explain its own underlying assumptions
No the burden is on superstition as science continually proves its ability to explain things while superstition continually fails to do so.

Like I say the only thing superstition can do is point to what science cannot yet explain, and declare this evidence for the existance of superstition. Which, when you think about it, makes no sense at all.
One good example is the cause of the singularity. Logic tells us that everything that begins to exist, has a cause.
No it doesnt. You are just begging the Prime Mover.
Science however cannot present a natural cause for the big bang
YET. Why do you continue to INSIST on excluding that word? I know - and I think everybody reading this would also know. This deception is all you guys GOT. It is YOUR Prime Mover.

But like your nonexistent soul it is destined one day to evaporate. Poof.
Henrik
1 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2012
Religion doesnt explain anything


To name but one example, it explains the origin of life. Second, it explains the mystery of death. Third, it explains why there is good and evil. Only if God exists, can objective moral values and duties exist. We know that objective moral values exists. Rape for instance is always evil, regardless of people's opinions, culture or biology. But in a world without God, there is no objective reason to condemn rape morally. So atheism must be false.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2012
Hope as some concocted survival mechanism? That would be irrational, and a form of self-delusion.
Ha no it is not. Trying to find some vaporous non-physical mystical mumbo jumbo explanation for it which requires some belief in a humongous sky fairy in order to accept, is the Epitomy of self-delusion.

Dont you think? Why dont you just ask another similar self-delusionist who thinks it derives from a totally different being, and is just as convinced (and just as wrong) of this as you?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2012
To name but one example, it explains the origin of life. Second, it explains the mystery of death. Third, it explains why there is good and evil
Hahahaha stop youre killing me. Again just ask your counterpart who is just as sure of this as you, but has a statue on his dashboard which looks completely different from yours.
Henrik
1 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2012
No the burden is on superstition as science continually proves its ability to explain things while superstition continually fails to do so.


I can see you are no longer challenging my premisses but turn to emotion intead. Do you have any sound logical argument? If not our discussion is pointless, and again I win concluding that atheists have nothing to support their absurd worldview. Where do laws of logic come from? Or reliability of human thought? Or the uniformity of nature? Yet your much touted science profoundly depends on all of these!

No it doesnt. You are just begging the Prime Mover


What premisse are you attacking? None. You have not come up with a single sound counter argument. That is disappointing. Again, science cannot come up with a physical model of the singularity because physics does not exist at Planck time. But something caused the big bang is what logic demands. Science clearly has no clue here.
Henrik
1 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2012
Hahahaha stop youre killing me


Before you drop dead you should try and present valid counter arguments. Then perhaps you don't have any. I have given many arguments why a theistic worldview wins over scientism hands down. You have come up with nothing. Theism wins.
Henrik
1 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2012
Why dont you just ask another similar self-delusionist


The one who is deluded is you my friend. First of all, your grasp of reality is twisted. Your worldview is based on things it cannot explain, yet you deny them. That is just ludicrous. Have you ever considered the possibility that you are compeletly clueless concerning the basic truths of your existence? You are not able to explain a single foundation of your own belief system.
Deathclock
4 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2012
It is based on mountains of DIRECT evidence


So what is the best direct evidence for molecules to man evolution according to you? Remember we are not talking about polyploidity, resistance to antibiotics, the beaks of finches, wasps, moths and other examples of small genetic variations, but the Darwinian speculation that your intelligence shares purpose and ancestry with an amoeba.


Ignoring all of the flaws in the wording of your question, Mitochondrial DNA would be a damn good starting place.

Do you think the study of genetics is a game? Do you have any idea the depth of our (collective) knowledge? What I find to be a universal truth is that people who deny established scientific fact is that the problem for them is not what they don't know about the science, but that they don't know HOW MUCH other people do know about it. Your problem is likely that you have no idea how much we actually know about genetics and evolution, and what we can do with that knowledge.
Henrik
1 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2012
Mitochondrial DNA ...


Really? Have scientists observed DNA growing spontaneously to form new types of organs and functions? No. DNA is firmly on the side of intelligent design in fact. DNA is a system of coded information, and there is no example of complex coded information without an intelligent source. There is no reason to assume that DNA would be any exception to that rule. DNA points to design.
Henrik
1 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2012
Your problem is likely that you have no idea how much we actually know about genetics and evolution, and what we can do with that knowledge.


Straw man argument. Your problem is that you have no example of direct observation but are not willing to concede that fact.
Shabs42
4.8 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2012
I would recommend starting here: http://www.talkor...comdesc/ and reading everything on this page.

No direct evidence of evolution? How about the hundreds of hominid fossils that have some ape and some human features? Or the several species similar to the Archeopteryx that show a gradual transition between reptiles and birds? The many fossils that show two of the jaw bones of reptiles gradually shrinking and shifting backwards to become the inner ear bones of mammals?

No predictions? Evolutionists predict based on similar fossils which species will have large swaths of pseudo-genes in common and and time and again are proven correct. They predict that of the thousands of fossils found every year, they will never find a hominid with scales, or a fish with wings. Evolution can be directed in a laboratory based on predictions with a startling degree of accuracy.
Shabs42
5 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2012
At this point I really hope you're just trolling, but I know the internet and religious zealots well enough to know this isn't the case.

Claiming evolution has no evidence and then claiming that one random religious text out of literally hundreds of competing versions, all of which have equal (zero) evidence in support is lunacy. If you had been alive in the 15th century you would be saying that there was no reason to believe that the earth revolved around the sun, or that mental illnesses weren't caused by demonic possession.
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2012
Your problem is likely that you have no idea how much we actually know about genetics and evolution, and what we can do with that knowledge.


Straw man argument. Your problem is that you have no example of direct observation but are not willing to concede that fact.


Direct observation of what? A single celled organism turning into a human... you're asking for the impossible and are being ridiculous.

Oh, and that was not a straw man argument that was an ad hominem...
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2012
Mitochondrial DNA ...


Really? Have scientists observed DNA growing spontaneously to form new types of organs and functions? No. DNA is firmly on the side of intelligent design in fact. DNA is a system of coded information, and there is no example of complex coded information without an intelligent source. There is no reason to assume that DNA would be any exception to that rule. DNA points to design.


Wow you're all confused... I didn't say "DNA"... I said Mitochondrial DNA... and you asked for direct evidence that humans share common ancestry with other species, not whether or not the information in DNA is of natural or artificial origin.
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2012
Also, you're a fool if you think "intelligent design" is an explanation that fits the observations better than evolution. First, the supposed "design" is not all that "intelligent"... It's a pretty piss poor design actually. Your "perfect" god can't get anything right can he? How man ailments do people suffer? Wisdom teeth are a good example. Your perfect god who designed us so intelligently gave us too many teeth to fit in our fucking mouths, what a genius. Vestigial organs are explained perfectly through evolution, but are directly contradictory to the notion of an intelligent designer. I know you'll brush this off as all retarded Christians do with any evidence that goes against their dogma.
Henrik
1 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2012
I know you'll brush this off as all retarded Christians do with any evidence that goes against their dogma.


Again atheists turn to ranting insults when they are confronted with the complete fallacy of their worldview. It shows they are the less rational species. Vestigal organs, wisdom teeth, Lucy, Neanderthals, a bird with teeth, it all fails to support their Darwinian speculation. No direct observational evidence for molecules to man evolution still.

And even if Darwin was right, the odds that a random process would arrive at the human species is proof of an intelligent agent at work. It is simply far too unlikely for humans to arise through a series of blind steps by chance. If Darwin is wrong, God exists and if Dawrin is right, God exists even more.
Henrik
1 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2012
Evolution can be directed in a laboratory


Now it is my time to laugh. Direct an undirected process. The only thing these experiments prove is that it requires an expensive lab with a lot of intelligent scientists to alter genetic material. If anything, this is solid proof for intelligent design, not random evolution. Silly.
Henrik
1 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2012
they will never find a hominid with scales, or a fish with wings


Is this a logically coherent argument? The fact that we do not find bizarre life forms, is more proof for design, not for a random process. The fact that we don't find a cucumber with wings has no logical connection to the hypothesis about man's origin as having a common ancestor with apes.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2012
If we take your statement "biology is chemistry only" then one can say that when you mix baking soda and vinegar you're making a living thing.
If YOU do that you are pretending that I said something other than what I did.

There is nothing in biology that isn't chemistry. That in no way is a claim that all of chemistry is biology.

The argument doesn't hold.
My argument does hold. The bullshit you posted was YOURS not mine.

This is an oversimplification of the issue IMO.
It is the entirety of the issue. All the structure and processes of life are chemical in nature, except for some electron transfers in the neurons and even those are supported by chemistry and behave according to physics as far as anyone can tell.

If you have evidence of there being something in biology that is functioning according to physical laws it will be the first time I have seen such a thing. I have seen CLAIMS of such things but the never the reality.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2012
What the hell are you talking about


I can only guess why someone else would use the world "evolution" when referring to non-biological evolution
That.

Is not.
that it doesn't only apply to biological evolution
In other words the second statement, which I didn't notice, is not consistent with the first statement. I was replying to the first statement

there have are and have been plenty of species of animals similar or larger in size than humans with a living population greater than 1 billion
Well a few anyway. The more I thought about it the less I could think of. I was surprised about the cattle as I tend to think of the being more than one species of domesticated cattle

As I thought on the question it became clear that any such species would have to be herbivorous or omnivorous. Predators are right out. Then I thought that we are fairly large and no purely African species was going to match a billion. Fish was my main area of thinking after that

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2012
Short stuff first. Then a MASSIVE set.

that kinda thing doesn't just happen by "random mutation" though... very intelligent mechanisms involved there!
Nonsense. It is simply two chromosomes welded together. Unusual but there is no design needed. You seem to be under the delusion that humans, as we exist today, were inevitable. We are the result of a series of accidents and non-accidental selections via failure to reproduce.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2012
Darwinian evolution is at least partially based on faith.
No. The evidence is vast.

Faith in Darwin's speculation about an event that took place in the distant past.
No. Evolution occurs today. You don't seem to what it is.

Man is supposed to be the offspring of a single cell through a sequence of intermediate life forms.
That is common descent not evolution. It is a consequence of evolution. A reasonable conclusion both then and far more so now that we know all life uses just a bit under three dozen base chemicals. 4 in RNA 4 in DNA and 24 amino acids. Yes 24 not 20. There are few species that use variants of the usual 20.

The evolution process from cell to intelligent life is non-repeatable and cannot be observed in a controlled environment.
Which has nothing to do with the reality of evolution.
>>
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2012
Darwinian evolution therefore remains fundamentally unverifiable.
You clearly meaning of the word. Darwinian evolution is not modern evolution. Neo-Darwinism has been verified in many experiments, the fossil evidence, and in the chemistry of life. You ignorance of what Darwinian evolution actually won't change reality.

But not as hard science or proven fact,
False.

for it lacks the transparency and accessibility of observable and repeatable experiment.
False.

It has been tested in the lab, in field experiments and by observation of changes in species without human intervention.

Go get a clue. From someone besides the Dishonesty Institute or the Creation Anti-Science Organization.

The scientific method however relies on repeatable experiments.
Which have been done. And evolution is a historical science not physics. You are trying to change reality with a bogus definition.>>
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2012
Those are impossible for unique historical events like the evolution of humans.
Which in no way means that evolution isn't occurring, has occurred, or that we have ample evidence that humans evolved.

That evidence is all indirect.
Horse manure.

No direct observation of single cell to human evolution has been made.
False definitions of evolution will not make the FACTS go away. Was that a deliberate lie or are you just that ignorant? I know the Discovery Institute engages in deliberate lies as do many other Creationist organizations.

This is not a scientific statement, but day-dreaming at best.
That is a lie. Science is not beholden to your intentionally deceptive and false definitions.

No, it was a factual statement.
No, it was lie. A very popular lie but it is still a lie.>>
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2012
. If one it not 100% sure of something, but still believes, that is called faith.
That is a lie. If one has evidence that supports something and none that shows it wrong than faith is not involved. That is the case for evolution. There are megatons of evidence for it and nothing against it. Yes nothing. Go ahead and show us some EVIDENCE that supports creation. There is none.

You may look it up in the dictionary if you don't believe me.
I don't believe you and if you can find a dictionary with that false definition then it is still false. Dictionaries have a lot definitions that are not the same as those of actual science.

No, chemistry is just one aspect of biology.
Really. Other than the electron transfers in neurons what is there?

But biology is much more than just chemistry.
Yeah physics.>>
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2012
The main one is that there is no clear chemical definition of phenomena like life, sexual reproduction, speech and the self.
Which in no way has anything to do with the actual processes of biology which are still just chemistry. Argument by definition instead of fact is a sign that you have no facts.

If you disagree, perhaps you should go ahead and model them as a chemical reaction schema.
If you disagree with biology being just chemistry perhaps you should show something that is not just chemistry nothing in life cannot be understood as a set of chemical reactions even if we do no yet know all of the reactions. If you think there is something none chemical it is up to YOU to show it.

I have no intention of being led down paths of nonsensical thinking based on your religion.

By the way when was the Great Flood and yes your position is religious. There is no scientific justification for it.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2012
I have given examples of aspects of life that cannot be explained by chemistry alone.
No you didn't. You just tried to equate culture to biology and avoid showing something that is not chemical. Be specific. Speech is by muscle, neurons, and air pressure. Nothing mystical in it. If you want to claim something wasn't covered by chemistry and fairly basic physics YOU are the one that needs to be specific.

Just what part of sex, for instance, is not covered by chemistry and neural actions.

Repeatability is an essential requirement of science.
Only for some sciences. Evolution is an historical science to a large extent. However experiment has show evolution in action.

Any experiment made in isolation is without value until it is confirmed by others.
Been done.

Clearly you know nothing of the scientific method.
Clearly you try to redefine things to avoid reality.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2012
Clearly you know nothing of the scientific method.
Which does not make the evidence for evolution go away. It only means we do not know everything. We do know the world is old and the life has changed, evolved, over time.

To deny that is just being willfully ignorant.
To call that the theory of Evolution is to either lie or you are going on ignorance.

The fossil record and DNA analysis can, at best, provide indirect evidence.
It is pretty direct and lab testing is purely direct.

. But to lable that as irrefutable is just foolish.
So refute it. Show actual evidence that life has not evolved.

No fossil bones can provide conclusive proof that they are a common ancestor of some other species bones.
Actually the do. Conclusive to all but the most tightly shuttered mind. Not being able to prove it to the actively ignorant does not mean that it is not more than adequate as proof.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2012
To say that evolution ever happened according to Darwins theory is definately a faith based statement.
And that is definitely another lie base on a false definition of evolution.

The false dichotomy of faith versus science.
Depends on the faith. If you are a Young Earth Creationist you faith is not compatible with science. If your faith denies evolution your faith is not compatible with science. Many Christians have faith that is not compatible with science. I am not aware of ANY Muslims that have faith that is compatible with science.

Science is always based on faith.
That is a dubious claim I don't agree with. It is based on a deliberate conflation of two different definitions of faith.

For science to exist it has to rely on things it cannot prove.
False. Science does not PROVE. It explains how things work within the limits of evidence. MATH has proofs and you trying to use a false concept of science to make the parts you don't like go away.
>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2012
Things like the uniformity of the laws of nature,
A reasonable assumption that so far fits all the evidence.

the reliablity of our memory and senses
There is no such assumption in science.

our ability to do logical reasoning.
That is another false claim. That is not faith, that is simply being reasonable. You can't get anywhere if you assume you can't get anywhere.

These are area's where science needs metaphysics to even come off the ground.
That is utter horse shit. It is simple reason that you have to make a few assumptions to get started. IF the assumptions were wrong THEN the evidence will show the errors. Of course in religion when Faith is shown wrong Apologists engage in strained imitations of reason and use false definitions to obfuscate reality.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2012
That is why Einstein said: science without religion is lame.
He also said it was lie that he was religious or believed in a personal god or anything remotely resembling any god of any religion. He might have fit in with Deists but even that doesn't seem quite as vague as he was.

Wrong example and refuted long ago.
Good example and not refuted.

The fact that the human genome 2 resembles parts of ape genomes 12 en 13 does not prove that in the past a common ancestor developed into apes
Depends on your definition of proof. Your statement shows that you aren't interested in evidence.

The fact that the human genome 2 resembles parts of ape genomes 12 en 13 does not prove that in the past a common ancestor developed into apes
No it doesn't. Its rare.

and does not produce new species,
Horsehit. Show one example.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2012
so the process is irrelevant for the supposed speciation of humans.
Not supposed. The only real questions is how many species of genus Homo and Australopithecus have there been.

Only if evolution is presupposed, can this be a valid example.
False. We have ample evidence of evolution. This is evidence of HOW some the changes between the other apes and us occurred.

Alternatively, one might argue that the resmeblance is due to common design.
Or you could just hold your breath until your face turns blue and stick your fingers in your ears as you are doing.

And where is the evidence for that Flood?

That sounds like you have some form of hope in science
More like it is a reasonable expectation based on present knowledge.

But that is irrational.
Nonsense. It is based on what we know and can reasonably expect to learn.

Hope only makes sense in a metaphysical context.
Only if you mis-define things. It is an emotional context.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2012
because science is limited to the material domain.
Which includes biochemistry. And emotions are chemical in nature.

Your hope is based on nothing, and I predict now that you will be dead in your grave one day.
I predict he may just decide on cremation to annoy you. You hopes are based on religious beliefs created by men.

So what is the best direct evidence for molecules to man evolution according to you?
Why do keep using that lie? That is NOT evolution. That is common descent.

but the Darwinian speculation that your intelligence shares purpose and ancestry with an amoeba.
That is not evolution. It is common descent.

Science cannot explain its own underlying assumptions,
Sure it can. If the testing works then the assumptions were close enough. Assuming the opposite would get you nothing except stagnation.

such as the laws of logic
Since they continue to work they are reasonable to continue to go on.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2012
the orderly nature of the external world,
You don't live in the same universe the rest of do I see.

the reliability of our cognitive faculties
Since we are not dead and the experiments work and experiments have show the limits of our senses you are just trying to engage in pure obfuscation. By that standard why do get up in the morning. Or afternoon in my case.

and the objectivity of the moral values used in science.
What the hell is that supposed to mean. Moral values aren't involved in science. Just an attempt to figure out how things work.

Nor can it prove that nothing exists beyond the material.
Energy is material. Laws of the Universe are material. Unless of course you want to admit that science deals with things other than Matter. Perhaps you should have used another word but I bet you are trying to avoid using religious words to pretend that you thinking isn't based on religion.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2012
In fact, there are many good reasons to think there is more than matter in the universe.
So you have notice that energy exists. Very good.

That is what you get for being disingenuous.

One good example is the cause of the singularity.
What singularity? I am not aware one actually existing in science. I am aware that there has been speculation but science really can't handle infinity very well as the moment.

Logic tells us that everything that begins to exist, has a cause.
No that is your religion. However if you want a cause I have a candidate. Math/logic. The principles, not the symbols, seem to be independent of the Universe. The Universe may exist simply because it can.

Logic tells us that everything that begins to exist, has a cause.
I just did.

because time and space do not exist before the Planck age.
That is an assumption that is not present in all the hypothesis that exist. Brane theory does not have that.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2012
. Science has to assume that everything just came out of nothing uncaused.
I don't. I assume the cause is math/logic. The Universe is mathematically and logically valid so it MUST exist. That is just as valid as your assumption.

But from nothing, nothing comes.
I think you mean that in terms of mass/energy. The total energy of the Universe looks to be zero. Gravity has negative energy equal the mass/energy that induced the gravity.

The only viable alternative cause for the big bang therefore is immaterial, uncaused and timeless.
False dichotomy. I have just given you a viable alternative.

The only viable alternative cause for the big bang therefore is immaterial, uncaused and timeless.
That whole post was pure bullshit. Standard crap these days for religious posters.

To name but one example, it explains the origin of life.
No it doesn't. It just moves the explanation to another being. A being that needs explanation.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2012
Second, it explains the mystery of death.
That is not a mystery. Death is the cessation of metabolism. Calling it a mystery is rather telling.

Second, it explains the mystery of death.
Nonsense. We define what is good or evil.

Only if God exists, can objective moral values and duties exist.
No. Those would not be objective. Those would fiat by a god and they could be just to see what sort crap the creations will swallow. Morals are not objective EXCEPT for those dealing with survival. Most morals do deal with survival.

We know that objective moral values exists.
No. You are just making a claim they are objective.

Rape for instance is always evil, regardless of people's opinions, culture or biology.
In some religions the rape victim must be killed. In others the rape victim must marry the rapist. The Bible has Jehovah insisting on that immoral marriage. Morals are not objective.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2012
But in a world without God, there is no objective reason to condemn rape morally.
That is a lie. Rape is nasty and I would not agree that any daughter I should have would ever marry the rapist as the Bible insists. The Bible has a lot immorality. The murder of all but 8 humans for instance. The murder of all the first born in Egypt. Those were massively immoral and yet the Bible pretends they were good.

Morals do NOT come that book.

So atheism must be false.
Fortunately that is another lie of yours. Atheism may be wrong BUT it sure is nice to know that Jehovah does not exist. If it did there would be no morality at all. Just immoral laws given by a psychopathic mass murderer.

Sure am glad there was no such thing.

Do you have any sound logical argument?
Why should he have something you don't?

, and again I win concluding that atheists have nothing to support their absurd worldview.
You mean you are lying again.>>
Eikka
4 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2012
If we take your statement "biology is chemistry only" then one can say that when you mix baking soda and vinegar you're making a living thing. The argument doesn't hold.


That argument has a logical fallacy.

Let's apply the same principle to something else: Televisions are electronics only, therefore wiring together a LED and a battery makes a television.

If A belongs to C and B belongs to C, it does not follow that B belongs to A.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2012
Of course I am not an Atheist. I am an Agnostic. There may be a god. Sure isn't Jehovah as that god is disproved. That god is supposed to have murdered all but 8 humans and that never happened so the god doesn't exist.

Where do laws of logic come from?
They seem to be inherent in existence.

Or reliability of human thought?
You have a very good example of the sad lack of reliability in much of human thought.

Or the uniformity of nature?
I could swear you said that was an assumption.

Yet your much touted science profoundly depends on all of these!
Nonsense. It only depends on success. It works.

Again, science cannot come up with a physical model of the singularity
It is exceedingly likely there was no singularity. Evolution is not dependent on any theory of how the Universe stared. Nor on how life on started.

But something caused the big bang is what logic demands
Your logic not mine.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2012
Science clearly has no clue here.
Science is about how things work. Not how they started. That is philosophy or in your case religion. I will go the philosophy route because I have yet to see a religion that is compatible with reality, except for Deism and that is just one step away from Agnosticism.

Before you drop dead you should try and present valid counter arguments.
He was waiting for me to see your posts.

y. I have given many arguments why a theistic worldview wins over scientism hands down.
No you didn't. You pushed a lot of nonsense, fake definitions and false claims of objective morals.

Theism wins.
Really? So when was that Great Flood and where is the evidence for it?

First of all, your grasp of reality is twisted.
Your grasp of morals is twisted.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2012
Have you ever considered the possibility that you are compeletly clueless concerning the basic truths of your existence?
Have you? I have thought on it and come to the conclusion that I have better logic supporting me than you do.

You are not able to explain a single foundation of your own belief system.
I did. I didn't explain every thing you claimed was a foundation but that is because you lied about those.

Really? Have scientists observed DNA growing spontaneously to form new types of organs and functions?
Sorry but that is another false challenge based on your misunderstanding of science and evolution.

DNA is firmly on the side of intelligent design in fact.
No. And I read Dr. Behe's book. It was utter crap.

DNA is a system of coded information
No. It a bit of chemistry.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2012
and there is no example of complex coded information without an intelligent source.
]Argument by definition. DNA is such an example. It is not coded in the sense of a human code in any case.

There is no reason to assume that DNA would be any exception to that rule.
Sure there is. Random mutations occur in DNA. Those mutations have no 'information' in them. That is evidence that design is not involved.

DNA points to design.
The many flaws in all lifeforms show that DNA was not designed or if it was the designer was grossly incompetent. Blood vessels in front of our retinas? Gross incompetence. Now, octopi have the vessels behind the retina where they belong.

Vestigal organs, wisdom teeth, Lucy, Neanderthals, a bird with teeth, it all fails to support their Darwinian speculation.
Lie.

No direct observational evidence for molecules to man evolution still.
Which is not needed to show that evolution occurs.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2012
And even if Darwin was right,
About what? He made a number of errors. So far, within the limits of evidence, common descent looks likely. Origin of species by natural selection is as certain as General Relativity.

he odds that a random process would arrive at the human species is proof of an intelligent agent at work.
False conclusion. And that has two errors about evolution.

Mutations are random. Selection is not, thus evolution is not random. The second error is that you think humans were a goal of evolution. That is false. We are an ACCIDENT of evolution. A low probability result of random mutations and non-random selection. We were not inevitable.

It is simply far too unlikely for humans to arise through a series of blind steps by chance.
That would be true IF we HAD to exist. We do not have to exist. Selection is NOT blind in any case.

If Darwin is wrong, God exists
False dichotomy. Darwin was wrong about some things. But evolution still happens.>>
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2012
if Dawrin is right, God exists even more.
False dichotomy and it does not follow from anything you said.

Now it is my time to laugh. Direct an undirected process.
Directed by the environment. By choosing the environment the selection part of evolution is given a direction.

The only thing these experiments prove is that it requires an expensive lab with a lot of intelligent scientists to alter genetic material.
Lie. Genetic material is altered in every one of us. And it was pretty cheap.

this is solid proof for intelligent design, not random evolution. Silly.
Well that statement is silly anyway.

Is this a logically coherent argument?
Yes.

The fact that we do not find bizarre life forms, is more proof for design,
No. And we do find bizarre life forms. We just don't find any that could not have evolved.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2012
not for a random process.
Evolution is not random. That is a lie that Creationists tell. Selection is part of evolution and is NOT random.

The fact that we don't find a cucumber with wings has no logical connection to the hypothesis about man's origin as having a common ancestor with apes.
Which again is a false definition of evolution. Have you ever gotten away with this crap on a science site?

Ethelred
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2012
Ethelred, I'd like to rank all of your posts a 5 but it would become a full time job...
Shabs42
5 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2012
Ethelred, I'd like to rank all of your posts a 5 but it would become a full time job...


Same. Just wanted to add that the specific directed evolution I was referring to was an experiment where the environment was changed around a yeast population to force selection to occur rapidly. Each new strain of yeast was separated and maintained in a constant environment. They were then able to show that past strains of yeast could dominate newer, "more evolved" strains when both were put in an environment similar to what the earlier strain had evolved to flourish in. This showed that evolution doesn't always "improve" the organism, it is simply a selection of mutations which are better suited for survival to and completion of reproduction given the current environmental pressures.
Henrik
1 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2012
The only evidence I see is someone showing advanced signs of obsessive compulsive posting without any coherent arguments. All in all, my point against molecules to man evolution still stands: only indirect evidence, no direct observation of Darwins historical speculation about the origin of mankind from a single cell via ape like creatures. Evolution is a nice hypothesis, but not a valid scientific theory, because it cannot be validated through experiments.
Shabs42
5 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2012
I think this one could have been considered a lost cause from as soon as he said a lack of evidence or an abundance of evidence would both be proof of intelligent design. Some people refuse to believe (or in this case, acknowledge the existence of) evidence, no matter how substantial.

For a rare on topic comment, does anyone know if it would be possible for fossil evidence of TNA to be found in some of the Precambrian rocks? Is this what the article means by exploring TNA as an early genetic system?
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2012
he only evidence I see is someone showing advanced signs of obsessive compulsive posting
Sorry but there so many words to reply too and so little content within those words. Someone had to deal with reality and sure wasn't you.

without any coherent arguments.
Lie a lot don't you. That won't make the bogus definitions you used real. As for evidence you didn't have any so all I did was point out the utter lack of reality based definitions, false dichotomies, fallacies, ignorance and well all the rest standard Creationist nonsense you posted.

I am not actually silly enough to expect a rational discussion from you after all that sophistry you posted.

. All in all, my point against molecules to man evolution still stands
You mean the false definition of evolution. It stands as rubbish all right. That we don't know everything doesn't mean we know nothing. The evidence that evolution occurs is overwhelming.

So is a false definition all you produce?>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2012
only indirect evidence, no direct observation of Darwins historical speculation about the origin of mankind from a single cell via ape like creatures.
If you supply the time machine we can get it. The fossil evidence is quite adequate to all but the completely unreasonable.

Evolution is a nice hypothesis, but not a valid scientific theory, because it cannot be validated through experiments.
That is lie. It has been validated with experiments. The lie you post as a definition of evolution can't be done in an experiment which is why use the lie instead of the truth.

http://www.evolut...;aid=382

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

http://en.wikiped...use_mice

Lots more out there. That is just three from the first ten in a simple Google search.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2012
Now about the Great Flood. That would clearly leave physical evidence that would be incontrovertible if it had occurred. Where is some? When was it? The Bible is pretty clear on the time scales involved so when do YOU think it happened?

Of course if you can't deal with your own Faith including a flood that never happened then perhaps you could start on evidence instead of bogus definition and bad logic in a vain attempt to make reality go away.

You inept reply to my posts was utterly disingenuous. I had hoped for better but had no expectation of an actually from you as the Discovery Institute has convinced Creationists that you don't stand a chance in reasoned debate. I guess the Dover Trial reinforced that cowardly stance of theirs. Hit and run bullshit a controversy based on lies and never ever try to support your own beliefs. Which is about as clear a confession that your beliefs are unsupportable as I can imagine.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2012
Of course you could try to engage in reasoned discourse instead this crap you tried to get away with. I have read Behe and Dembski, have you? Want to discuss them? Or will continue to run from the hard questions?

I have the guts to discuss this. Do you?

No guts no glory.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2012
For a rare on topic comment, does anyone know if it would be possible for fossil evidence of TNA to be found in some of the Precambrian rocks?
I don't see how. This not merely pre-cambrian it would be from nearly the very beginning. More than 3.5 billion years ago and the chemicals would have made good eatings for life.

Is this what the article means by exploring TNA as an early genetic system?
I am pretty sure they are talking about lab experiments. Experiments to find out if it could have enzyme like activity as RNA can manage.

Ethelred
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2012
only indirect evidence, no direct observation of Darwins historical speculation about the origin of mankind from a single cell via ape like creatures.


You realize you are asking for the impossible right? We will never be able to replicate something that took billions of years.

You're being completely fucking ridiculous. Just because we can't watch something occur due to the timescales involved doesn't mean we can't learn about the process. You are discrediting almost every single finding in the fields of geology, paleontology, and history with this horseshit, do you know that? You haven't given me any direct evidence of jesus christ either, but I bet you believe in him don't you? Show me jesus christ and let me talk to him or I won't believe he ever existed because his existence is based solely on indirect evidence.

You're being ridiculous, everyone sees it.
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2012
The inanity and stupidity of a christian demanding first hand eye witness accounts to believe in something is rage inducing.

Everything you believe in in your precious bible has only indirect evidence, if even that, you big hypocrite.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2012
Hypocrisy is bog standard for Creationists these days. Being honest or at least open about their beliefs showed that the beliefs were based on the writings of ignorant men. So now they lie, evade, distort and engage hypocrisy.

Then they run away.

Rage is counterproductive. They are the actively ignorant not you.

Keep this in mind during online discussions.

The only way you can lose such a discussion is to lose your temper. The worst that can otherwise is that you will learn something.

OK the worst that can happen is that you can get conned by an actively ignorant poster because you didn't engage in critical thinking. But barring that tragedy you can only lose if you go ballistic.

Ethelred
Henrik
1 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2012
I guess when the atheist is finally confronted with the folly of his beliefs, anger and insult is the only way out. The truth hurts.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2012
Sorry you had to lie instead of deal with what this Agnostic had to say. That is your problem not mine.

When are you going to tell us when the Great Flood occurred. Too angry to answer or too ignorant.

I never lose my temper just because someone insists on telling lies like you do. The lies are your problem. The truth is my ally. I have evidence you have an ancient book written by ignorant men. Men that didn't even notice that Genesis Two contradicts Genesis One.

Ethelred

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.