Are the sugars ribose and deoxyribose self assembling

Chance is chance, nothing more nothing less. In regards to evolution, chance mutations are the basis for change with natural selection being the filter. Where do you see evolutionists treating chance as a diety?

Just watch the discovery channel, national Geographic channel, or the science channel.

That's a bit hard to discuss. A transcript of a particular show might help. Or if you could attempt to paraphrase what you think you heard we could discuss it a bit.I guess you'd have to define "deity". It is hard to figure someone taking some statistical formula in the same way Shiva, Jehovah or Allah is taken by the religious.

Keith,Maybe you could be more specific, generalisations are quite boring and meaningless. Not only that, but they reflect your own biases and prejudices without any evidence. Also, those stations you listed are not usually that scientific, those of us who know real science tend to get a few chuckles watching their programs. They tend to dramaticize the very mundane and overstate quite a few things. What you should do is pick an area of interest and start to read the primary literature (actual papers in journals like Sciend and Nature). This is where the real science is. The local library should have copies of both Science and Nature for the last 10 or so years.

This is as far as I can take it, but I should mention that there is evidence that RNA was the first information chemical (before DNA). Recently, RNA was shown to be able to act as an enzyme, performing precise chemical reations such as cutting and splicing RNA molecules at a precise location (these talented RNA's are called ribozymes). Also, RNA molecules can be made from individual bases by first attaching to and lining up along the flat, organized crystals of clay minerals. (Clay is covered with positive charges that would attract negatively charged molecules like RNA bases).We may never know what caused the first bacterial (or pre-bacterial) cell to form; some people speculate that a bacterial spore drifted to earth from a different planet (but that just begs the question of how that cell originated) Christians such as myself who see the formation of life proceeding gradually by natural processes can easily see opportunities for divine intervention to get the whole thing rolling (just as you need a big bang before galaxies, stars and planets can form). I suspect new insights concerning the creation of life will emerge in the next century (perhaps bacteria-like cells will be found on Mars, which once had rivers and seas, after all.)

Hello there Keith63, Your average bacterium is pretty complicated, I agree. There are all sorts of proteins knocking about that are required for them to function properly; I doubt you’ll find much argument with that and you seem to be taking a lot of comfort from that fact. The trouble is, as people keep on pointing out to you: no-one is saying that an E. coli magically appeared out of a primordial soup. How about this for a sequence of events to discuss:1 Formation of basic chemical building blocks from said soup
2 First self-replicating molecules leading to RNA/DNA
3 Protection of RNA/DNA by lipid bilayer
4 Proteins start getting encoded by DNA
5 Proteins start helping ‘proto-cell’ survive better for example by providing structural integrity or improving protein synthesis or enzymatic reactions
6 Lots and lots of small improvements over time leading to a ‘proper’ energy producing, dividing cell.
7. Eukaryotic cells
8. Multicellular organisms .I think you probably know the rest The order of steps 1-4 are probably an intense cause for debate among evolutionists but as I am not an expert in the field, I will probably get pulled up on a few points by people more knowledgeable in this area — I’m just suggesting things based on my knowledge of cell biology. But at least it’s something to discuss more than that cells are just way ‘tooo’ complicated.Note that point four is a very important step. I can feel you wanting to point out that protein synthesis involves proteins like those of the ribosome for example. Ask yourself this — isn’t it strange that the core components of protein sythesis require RNA to function?And finally, remember that these things are supposed to have happened over millions of years, not knocked up in my Uncle’s shed over a couple of weekends. The fact that we have been unable to recreate life in a test tube should not be a great surprise and neither should it be used as an argument for a divinely created cell.

keith63:So you're saying that because biology is so "complex" that it can't ever be understood, and therefore the theory of evolution must be wrong???Hmm...But you don't have any problem understanding the "simple" concept of an all-powerful omniscient being who created the whole shebang?

Since this thread has been bumped anyway, it's a good time to point to the article in Science v303 p 196, 9 Jan 2004: simple aldehydes that are found in comets and the like readily form ribose when put in solution over common borate minerals such as colemanite. So RNA might have arisen in Death Valley, and Ronald Reagan was probably hosting the eponymous TV show when it did.

keith63 What bloody arrogance on your part since you do not have clue one how such an event could occur.

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)