Simpler times: Did an earlier genetic molecule predate DNA and RNA?
January 9, 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 DNA 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 Nature Chemistry, 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 nucleic acids 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 RNA will, over time, be answered.
More information: "Darwinian evolution of an alternative genetic system provides support for TNA as an RNA progenitor", DOI: 10.1038/nchem.1241
Provided by
Arizona State University
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update),
4 comments
-
How to find the concentration of nucleic acid solution using optical density?
2 hours ago
-
How do I turn sodium acetate trihydrate into sodium acetate anhydrous and vice versa?
3 hours ago
-
Calculating partial pressures Pa and Pw
5 hours ago
-
Gibbs Free Energy Change/Entropy
15 hours ago
-
What's the rule to covalent character
17 hours ago
-
Schwartz reagent-- NMR/MS/IR
May 26, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Chemistry
More news stories
Computer model used to pinpoint prime materials for efficient carbon capture
When power plants begin capturing their carbon emissions to reduce greenhouse gases – and to most in the electric power industry, it's a question of when, not if – it will be an expensive undertaking.
8 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
|
Scientists develop ultra-sensitive test that detects diseases in their earliest stages
Scientists have developed an ultra-sensitive test that should enable them to detect signs of a disease in its earliest stages, in research published today in the journal Nature Materials.
Chemistry / Analytical Chemistry
8 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
|
New CO2-removing catalyst can take the heat
(Phys.org) -- The current method of removing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) from the flues of coal-fired power plants uses so much energy that no one bothers to use it. So says Roger Aines, principal ...
May 24, 2012 |
5 / 5 (9) |
11
|
High-speed method to aid search for solar energy storage catalysts
Eons ago, nature solved the problem of converting solar energy to fuels by inventing the process of photosynthesis.
May 25, 2012 |
5 / 5 (3) |
4
|
Researchers demonstrate possible primitive mechanism of chemical info self-replication
(Phys.org) -- When scientists think about the replication of information in chemistry, they usually have in mind something akin to what happens in living organisms when DNA gets copied: a double-stranded molecule ...
May 25, 2012 |
5 / 5 (4) |
2
|
Stunning image of smallest possible five-ringed structure
Scientists have created and imaged the smallest possible five-ringed structure – about 100,000 times thinner than a human hair – and you'll probably recognise its shape.
'Unzipped' carbon nanotubes could help energize fuel cells, batteries
Multi-walled carbon nanotubes riddled with defects and impurities on the outside could replace some of the expensive platinum catalysts used in fuel cells and metal-air batteries, according to scientists at ...
Change in developmental timing was crucial in the evolutionary shift from dinosaurs to birds: study
At first glance, it's hard to see how a common house sparrow and a Tyrannosaurus Rex might have anything in common. After all, one is a bird that weighs less than an ounce, and the other is a dinosaur that ...
T cells 'hunt' parasites like animal predators seek prey, study shows
By pairing an intimate knowledge of immune-system function with a deep understanding of statistical physics, a cross-disciplinary team at the University of Pennsylvania has arrived at a surprising finding: T cells use a movement ...
Land and sea species differ in climate change response: study
(Phys.org) -- Marine and terrestrial species will likely differ in their responses to climate warming, new research by Simon Fraser University and Australia’s University of Tasmania has found.
Yale study concludes public apathy over climate change unrelated to science literacy
Are members of the public divided about climate change because they don't understand the science behind it? If Americans knew more basic science and were more proficient in technical reasoning, would public consensus match ...
Jan 10, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (9)
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!
Jan 10, 2012
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (11)
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.
Jan 10, 2012
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (12)
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!
Jan 10, 2012
Rank: 4.9 / 5 (9)
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
Jan 10, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
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
Jan 11, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
Jan 12, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
Why do you think I am cursed with that sort of thought?
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.
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.
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.
Go slit your wrists and then ask the question again.>>
Jan 12, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
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?
Why? How? And did you actually consider it or was as oddly considered as the questions you just asked?
No. Just knowing where the person that tied it hid the ends would do the trick.
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
Jan 12, 2012
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
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.
Jan 12, 2012
Rank: 1.2 / 5 (12)
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.
Jan 12, 2012
Rank: 3.9 / 5 (7)
Evolution just means to change... biological evolution obviously only refers to biological systems.
Jan 12, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Speaking of which... MM you been on sabbatical? Out wandering the wilderness maybe? Set any bushes on fire?
Jan 12, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (10)
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.
Jan 12, 2012
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (3)
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.
Jan 12, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Jan 12, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (10)
I know that, neither did IFC...which was my entire point.
Again that was my initial inference...
Jan 13, 2012
Rank: not rated yet
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
Jan 13, 2012
Rank: not rated yet
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.
Jan 13, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
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.
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
Why shouldn't people us the word for things outside biology? It has never been limited to biology.
That is rather a bit before Darwin.
Clearly neither of you know that the word has meaning outside of and before biology.
Ethelred
Jan 13, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
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
Jan 13, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
http://www.scient...man-ones
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
Ethelred
Jan 13, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (10)
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.
Thanks! :)
This is an oversimplification of the issue IMO.
Jan 13, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
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...
Jan 13, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
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.
Jan 13, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (10)
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.
Jan 13, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
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.
Jan 13, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (9)
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.
Jan 13, 2012
Rank: 4 / 5 (3)
Of course, no argument. Though our very existence is strong evidence that if you leave chemistry to itself you may get biology.
Jan 13, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Jan 13, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
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.
Jan 13, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
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.
Jan 13, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
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.
That evidence is all indirect. No direct observation of single cell to human evolution has been made.
This is not a scientific statement, but day-dreaming at best.
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.
Jan 13, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Repeatability is not a requirement of science.But the process of evolution has, and we continue to examine irrefutable evidence in the fossil and genetic records all the time.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
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
"...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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
"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."
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
No it is not /facepalm
This is completely unnecessary.
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.
Wrong. Go to school, study evolutionary theory, then get back to me. You don't know anything about it.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
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"
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
This mechanism aids in survival and is thus selected for. What makes you think 'hope' is anything more than that?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.Jeez I hope youre wrong.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 2 / 5 (5)
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
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?
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
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.No it doesnt. You are just begging the Prime Mover.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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
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?
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
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!
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
Straw man argument. Your problem is that you have no example of direct observation but are not willing to concede that fact.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 4.8 / 5 (4)
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
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...
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
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.
Jan 14, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
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.
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
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.
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
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.
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
There is nothing in biology that isn't chemistry. That in no way is a claim that all of chemistry is biology.
My argument does hold. The bullshit you posted was YOURS not mine.
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
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
That.
Is not.
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
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
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
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
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
No. Evolution occurs today. You don't seem to what it is.
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.
Which has nothing to do with the reality of evolution.
>>
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
False.
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.
Which have been done. And evolution is a historical science not physics. You are trying to change reality with a bogus definition.>>
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Horse manure.
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.
That is a lie. Science is not beholden to your intentionally deceptive and false definitions.
No, it was lie. A very popular lie but it is still a lie.>>
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
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.
Really. Other than the electron transfers in neurons what is there?
Yeah physics.>>
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
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.>>
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Just what part of sex, for instance, is not covered by chemistry and neural actions.
Only for some sciences. Evolution is an historical science to a large extent. However experiment has show evolution in action.
Been done.
Clearly you try to redefine things to avoid reality.>>
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
To call that the theory of Evolution is to either lie or you are going on ignorance.
It is pretty direct and lab testing is purely direct.
So refute it. Show actual evidence that life has not evolved.
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.>>
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
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.
That is a dubious claim I don't agree with. It is based on a deliberate conflation of two different definitions of faith.
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.
>>
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
There is no such assumption in science.
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.
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.>>
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Good example and not refuted.
Depends on your definition of proof. Your statement shows that you aren't interested in evidence.
No it doesn't. Its rare.
Horsehit. Show one example.>>
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
False. We have ample evidence of evolution. This is evidence of HOW some the changes between the other apes and us occurred.
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?
More like it is a reasonable expectation based on present knowledge.
Nonsense. It is based on what we know and can reasonably expect to learn.
Only if you mis-define things. It is an emotional context.>>
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
I predict he may just decide on cremation to annoy you. You hopes are based on religious beliefs created by men.
Why do keep using that lie? That is NOT evolution. That is common descent.
That is not evolution. It is common descent.
Sure it can. If the testing works then the assumptions were close enough. Assuming the opposite would get you nothing except stagnation.
Since they continue to work they are reasonable to continue to go on.>>
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
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.
What the hell is that supposed to mean. Moral values aren't involved in science. Just an attempt to figure out how things work.
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.>>
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
That is what you get for being disingenuous.
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.
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.
I just did.
That is an assumption that is not present in all the hypothesis that exist. Brane theory does not have that.>>
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
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.
False dichotomy. I have just given you a viable alternative.
That whole post was pure bullshit. Standard crap these days for religious posters.
No it doesn't. It just moves the explanation to another being. A being that needs explanation.>>
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Nonsense. We define what is good or evil.
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.
No. You are just making a claim they are objective.
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.>>
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Morals do NOT come that book.
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.
Why should he have something you don't?
You mean you are lying again.>>
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
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.
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
They seem to be inherent in existence.
You have a very good example of the sad lack of reliability in much of human thought.
I could swear you said that was an assumption.
Nonsense. It only depends on success. It works.
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.
Your logic not mine.>>
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
He was waiting for me to see your posts.
No you didn't. You pushed a lot of nonsense, fake definitions and false claims of objective morals.
Really? So when was that Great Flood and where is the evidence for it?
Your grasp of morals is twisted.>>
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
I did. I didn't explain every thing you claimed was a foundation but that is because you lied about those.
Sorry but that is another false challenge based on your misunderstanding of science and evolution.
No. And I read Dr. Behe's book. It was utter crap.
No. It a bit of chemistry.>>
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Sure there is. Random mutations occur in DNA. Those mutations have no 'information' in them. That is evidence that design is not involved.
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.
Lie.
Which is not needed to show that evolution occurs.>>
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
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.
That would be true IF we HAD to exist. We do not have to exist. Selection is NOT blind in any case.
False dichotomy. Darwin was wrong about some things. But evolution still happens.>>
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Directed by the environment. By choosing the environment the selection part of evolution is given a direction.
Lie. Genetic material is altered in every one of us. And it was pretty cheap.
Well that statement is silly anyway.
Yes.
No. And we do find bizarre life forms. We just don't find any that could not have evolved.>>
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Which again is a false definition of evolution. Have you ever gotten away with this crap on a science site?
Ethelred
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
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.
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Jan 15, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
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?
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
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.
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?>>
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
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.>>
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
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.>>
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
I have the guts to discuss this. Do you?
No guts no glory.
Ethelred
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
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
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
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.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Everything you believe in in your precious bible has only indirect evidence, if even that, you big hypocrite.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
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
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
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