DNA similarities ARE NOT proof of evolution

Prions are fun. (unless they're rotting your brain, ala Chronic Wasting Disease) I wouldn't say they spontaneously generate - it's more that they're a degenrate shape of a specific protein that catalyzes other, non-degenrate proteins to take on that shape. (Those proteins catalyze other proteins, and so on in a chain reaction.)Are they life? Obviously not. (At least to my thinking, they have no ability to respond to changes in the environment.) Could they bear some similarity to the first self-replicating molecules? It's possible. They're a good example of how a molecule could reproduce without the sophisticated cellular mechanisms that let DNA copy itself.My theory (if I may be permitted a Douglas Hofstatder-type junction of logic and biology) is that in any sufficiently complex system such particles will arise spontaneously - self-perpetuating degenerate states, ala Godel's incompleteness theorem. Perhaps life itself started as such a state in some simpler system of chemical interactions.Ok, now I'm starting to sound like Brad McFall. I better stop musing...

Not on their own, no. But I think that the first self-replicating molecules might have followed a similar process - they would have catalyzed pre-existing complex organic molecules (molequles that would have a natural origin) into more of themselves.I'm no molecular biologist (not even close). Just an armchair thinker. Prions suggest to me that molecules could exist that could catalyze a reaction that would create more of themselves.

Heard this, heard it refuted.Were you aware that the planes landed towards the coast of Greenland, where it snows all the time? Precipitation makes ice cores unreliable. So ice cores are taken from the center of Greenland, which is like an icy desert (no precipitation.) You might like to read a more extensive examination of the subject here.Anyway, if ice cores are so unreliable, how come they match up so well with independant age verifiers, like recorded volcanic activity (we find the ash in the ice)? In truth, if you get the cores from the right place they're a great way to establish the dates of ice ages. No, when it gets right down to it, all you have are the same tired arguments that we've refuted over and over again and that you've just copied from websites. Try a little real research sometime.

Speculation? The precipitation levels of Greenland are very well-measured. Did you follow the link and read the posts? Either that, or I know that creationists are motivated not by earnest aquisition of data but in confirming specific ideology. the fact that the data is "unreliable" only for those beggin a specific conclusion is very telling indeed.Anyway what are you talking about, "poles"? I don't recall saying anything about poles. Please explain what you mean. Remember when I was talking about plate tectonics (which you never responded to)? Antarctica used to be much farther north - far enough to have green vegitation. Also you may be aware that coal is itself decayed, fossilized plant matter so your post is self-contradictory.Look, this isn't even remotely on topic. First, address the legion responses to your inital topics. Then, if you want to talk about ice cores and airplanes, open a new topic or refute the one I sent you to.

Since the topic started with Booboocruise's nonsense, and he has not yet seen fit to respond to any refutations of his arguments, we can only assume he has conceded his original point, or else has no interest in defending it.Thus I think we can assume the topic is relatively dead, and probably close-worthy. If BBC wants to respond to statements perhaps he can start a new topic in the appropriate section...Sorry for the tone of the post - I know no one died and made me admin. But it does seem like the admins are being especially forebearing with BBC...?

Well, that's why you're reading these discussion on the internet, not on the pages of Nature. No offense to the admins (Percy especially) who clearly devote a lot of their time to running this whole thing.My point is, creationists have to be debated somewhere or else their claims of being victim of a conspiracy to silence them begin to ring true. This way we're able to show them the error of their ways before they launch on a crusade to destroy science education in this country and others.

True enough. Some of them think, however, that their faith isn't blind - they can justify their beliefs with reason and science too. Once they've made that gamble, we're able to put the choice in front of them - there's no scientific evidence for creationist models, so either they must admit their faith cannot be justified by science or accept the findings of science and adapt their beliefs to match. Either way we've made our point - young earth models can't be held up by the evidence.Even if a really hard-core creationist says "Gosh, I thought I had this killer proof but it totally failed to convince anybody, why might that be?" the seed is there. They must at least entertain the idea that their faith might not be the best place to get ideas about the nature of reality. That's enough for me, I guess.