On Mon, 26 May 2008 08:11:51 -0700 (PDT), Awais Nazir
<waqas.faheem@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>INTRODUCTION:
>
>I was skeptical about the existence of God, but no more now.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>SECULAR EVIDENCE:
>
>That proto-DNA/RNA/PNA/TNA/GNA, which emerged about 4 billion years
>ago, as fossil records indicate, has to meet the following 4
>conditions, (1) ALL OF THEM (2) SIMULTANEOUSLY AND (3) WITHIN ONE
>GENERATION (only God can do this), or the proto-DNA/RNA/PNA/TNA/GNA is
>dead (ref: en.wikipedia.com):
1 is not a condition
2 Why did they have to come together at the same time?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
Suggests that RNA preceded DNA
GNA ia a "hypothetical precursor to RNA."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycerol_nucleic_acid
"TNA does not even exist in any known life form on Earth. The science
says it is easier to assemble and MAY have preceded RNA."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threose_nucleic_acid
"Peptide nucleic acid (PNA) is an artificially synthesized polymer
similar to DNA or RNA and is used in biological research and medical
treatments. PNA is not known to occur naturally."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide_nucleic_acid
3 Just because it is not understood or replicated yet, does not = a
"god"
>
>-different organic compounds joined in exact helical order.
>-have a complete reproductive system.
>-have a complete DNA/RNA/PNA/TNA/GNA-repair system.
>-have a complete metabolic system.
Nope, a virus for example is the simplest bundling of DNA, it has no
"cell walls" no reproductive system, no digestive system, no repair
system.
It is entirely possible that these extra facilities were added latter.
As is evidenced by the mitocondrial organelle that we have in our
cells now, that were most probably "swallowed" but not "eaten". They
are found in oxygen consuming organisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondria
>
>Chimps are 98.8% human, not because humans evolved out of proto-chimp,
>but because humans share biological functions with Chimps more than
>any other living thing.
Ummm, not a "proto-chimp" but we share a common ancestor, some 20
million od years ago, there were no men or chimps, but there was
something that both evolved from.
>
>Evolution is "theory", not a proved "law".
There are very few laws in science. The best thing about a theory is,
is that it can be replaced if a better explanation can be found. So
far one has not. Watson and Crick's discovery of DNA actually added a
mechanism to explain evolution.
>
>Famous Scientist Crick proposed that the proto-DNA/RNA couldn't have
>developed on Earth, but must have come from the space; but this
>doesn't solve the problem, about the origin of the proto-DNA/RNA.
"The Wikipedia article points out that Crick later rethought his
position, and became more optimistic about spontaneous generation of
life on this planet."
http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/10/26/sir-francis-crick-dna-and-id/
Your science is so sloppy that your argument makes no sense by the
time you reach this point.
--
Grant
|
