God's Day 1 Billion Years?

Well, that's what it's like now, to be sure. And remember too that the structure of DNA is universal; it's the same for all existing organisms, no matter how different those organisms may be. Plants, animals, and everything in between - the genetic mechanism is identical. (Which substantiates the evolutionary position of shared common ancestry.)What you've described is how it works now. What makes you think that was how it worked in the beginning?

Can you reword your question? I don't understand what you're asking me.

Why would it be? Things change over time. Why would it? Why wouldn't DNA be the later development of a lineage of living things? That would be an improper extrapolation. How does that follow logically, in your mind? What do these things have to do with each other? You need to refine your thought process before you post again.Consider this simple model:1) first living thing evolves with RNA-based genetics and enzymes.
2) decendants of that living thing develop DNA-based genetics and protein-based enzymes.
3) decendants of that living thing go on to evolve into all the living things that exist today.Just because a group of living things share a quality, doesn't mean that every ancestor of those things shared the quality. Evolution is the source of novel structures in living things, and DNA at one point was one of those novel structures.

You've never heard of viruses? Or prions? Now, certainly those things now cannot reproduce except in the context of more complicated life; but certainly they bear similarities to whatever chemical protolife was the ancestors of "truly" living things.Look, Jim. The whole business is much, much more complicated than you seem prepared to deal with. Your grand pronouncements of what is impossible, buoyed by false statements about what Nasa may or may not have said, are meaningless. If you're not prepared to accept abiogenesis, that's fine. It's true that it's a hard field to work in, because time machines don't exist, and molecules don't readily fossilize.But we're making progress, and eventually that progress will roll right over your nonsense objections and your throwback theology.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

The Hebrew Bible may be many things, but it is not monotheistic. While it is true that the Bible asserts the dominance of only one God to be worshipped, it certainly makes no claim that the gods of the other religions do not exist at all. In fact, quite the opposite.But that's not on-topic in this thread. This is a science thread, not a theology thread. We've never observed any Creator creating life. Therefore that conclusion is not a scientific one.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Well, there's no such evidence that a creator even exists.And my statement isn't sloppy. No model of abiogenesis will ever be accepted until it produces results under laboratory conditions. There isn't any other kind of evidence avaliable; we won't ever have fossils of the chemical precursors to life. That information is lost forever. Observation of experiment is the only potential evidence that could confirm or dismiss any abiogenic model.