Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
743 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, GDR, PaulK, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), xongsmith (7 members, 736 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,884 Year: 21,920/19,786 Month: 483/1,834 Week: 483/315 Day: 79/82 Hour: 9/11

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Evolution of Genetic Material??
Posts: 3616
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004

Message 16 of 21 (108215)
05-14-2004 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by SumNemo
05-14-2004 12:44 PM

Re: Oh Really?
SumNemo writes:

Very well. It is conceivable that I have mixed up my facts. Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide proof of my mix-up, however. Thank you.

It would be helpful that you be ready to back up your claim should anyone ever ask. An answer like "you should do your own research..." or the answer you just gave above will tick many people off, including myself.



By the way, welcome to the boards.

This message has been edited by Lama dama ding dong, 05-14-2004 12:35 PM

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by SumNemo, posted 05-14-2004 12:44 PM SumNemo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by SumNemo, posted 05-14-2004 2:57 PM Lammy has not yet responded

Inactive Junior Member

Message 17 of 21 (108229)
05-14-2004 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Lammy
05-14-2004 1:16 PM

Re: Oh Really?
Perhaps people would rather go out and spend the $95 to buy the book from which I obtained my information.

Here are the particulars, though, in case anyone is interested.

Title: Historical Geology
Edition: Fourth
Authors: Wicander/Monroe
Publisher: Brooks/Cole, a division of Thompson

From here I obtained my information. If anyone has any information refuting mine, I would appreciate seeing a link or book title so that I might receive enlightenment, rather than remain in ignorance.

Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Lammy, posted 05-14-2004 1:16 PM Lammy has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2043 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004

Message 18 of 21 (108255)
05-14-2004 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by SumNemo
05-14-2004 11:52 AM

Polymerisation of amino acids
No matter what the reason, whether the heat was left on too long or not, amino acids will NEVER polymerise into DNA. If amino acids polymerise they form proteins. The only monomers which could form DNA by polymerisation are dideoxy nucleotides. Chemically these are totally different from amino acids. Consider this - if I string together a whole bunch of paper clips, how likely is it that at the end of the process the paperclips have all transmogrified into daisies to make a daisy chain?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by SumNemo, posted 05-14-2004 11:52 AM SumNemo has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 19 of 21 (108260)
05-14-2004 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by coledude
05-13-2004 9:38 PM

Re: Discover Magazine
because DNA is not self replicating because it has no enzyme activity, and RNA cannot replicate itself without DNA either. Both must have come into existence at the same time. Therefore, it must have been created.

Why couldn't DNA and RNA come from space aliens looking to terraform a planet for colonization? I see no reason why we should jump to the conclusion of a diety.

What is the simplest organism you can think of? Probably some kind of virus, which still has how many genes? The smallest one I have ever heard of still has a few hundred genes. The 'simplest' organism on Earth is still far to complicated to ever have evolved step-wise.

First of all, viruses are not considered to be "alive". Second of all, you have not shown any evidence that viruses, or even bacteria, are the simplest organisms EVER to live on earth. For you to claim that all life that has ever existed on earth was too complex to come about by natural mechanisms, you must first show us what the simplest, least complex organism to ever live on earth. Up to the challenge?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by coledude, posted 05-13-2004 9:38 PM coledude has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Unseul, posted 05-18-2004 11:45 AM Loudmouth has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 20 of 21 (109020)
05-18-2004 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Loudmouth
05-14-2004 6:03 PM

Re: Discover Magazine
The topic of whether or not virus's are alive is hotly debated still as far as i am aware. However i think that the main problem with the definition of alive is that we are simply composed of molecules interacting in various ways, this happens in a test tube in a chemistry class. I reckon alive is in the same class of vague definitions such as species etc etc Its all rather fuzzy.


Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Loudmouth, posted 05-14-2004 6:03 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Denesha, posted 05-18-2004 12:41 PM Unseul has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 21 of 21 (109031)
05-18-2004 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Unseul
05-18-2004 11:45 AM

Re: Discover Magazine
Dear Unseul,

Do you really think that the residue of Miller's experimentation could be considered alive in his laboratory recipient?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Unseul, posted 05-18-2004 11:45 AM Unseul has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019