Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: didjuneau who wrote (152261)	12/22/2005 12:46:21 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 793964

I wanted to see if there were any known holes in the ID hypothesis, and found information that RNA could have reproduced itself before DNA came into existence. RNA is comprised of proteins, which are comprised of amino acids, and amino acids have been created in the laboratory out of a mix of elements under the right conditions. So hypothetically, it is all possible under evolution, given enough time and just the right conditions. But that's not evolution. Even if proteins formed into RNA, they didn't do so to become more effective or successful proteins. Nor would it be an incremental change, and the essence of evolution is incremental change. It solves the problem of lack of time to evolve from mineral to living cell here on Earth, but it passes the buck on where it all started. I think, ultimately, science can't really answer this question, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Where life came from is very much a scientific question. And good science comes from not rejecting any even slightly plausible hypothesis until it is fully examined. After all, 2000 years ago how plausible was it that man could build a metal object the size of about a dozen triremes and weighing as much as several houses that could fly like a bird and carry hundreds of people thousands of miles. Totally absurd. Scientifically impossible.