How it Works0 min ago
Dna And Its Origins
189 Answers
In the light of new findings, DNA is even more beautiful and complex than we imagined, considering that it was in existence in the early life-forms on the planet, doesn't any theory of the origin of life by a blind series of chemical accidents seem preposterous ?
Surely only the most unimaginative and feeble-minded could believe in this.
Surely only the most unimaginative and feeble-minded could believe in this.
Answers
Hmm. They are different achievements
14:01 Sun 11th Oct 2015
atalanta; The fact is, and I hate to have to tell you this, but John Parrington doesn't have a clue as to the origins of DNA on this planet and neither does Stephen Hawkins, the big difference between them is that Hawkins is aware of that and the former isn't.
One is minded of the lines of W.B. Yeats;
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."
One is minded of the lines of W.B. Yeats;
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."
Khandro - //And as a sub-question; aren't you absolutely staggered in wonder? //
Absolutely! On a daily basis, by the miracles of nature that surround me in this wonderful world of ours.
But my wonder does not extend as far as saying that because creation is the marvel that it is - that means it must have been created by a sentient being - a 'god' if you will.
I believe that inbuilt in Man's psyche is the driven need to explain and understand and make sense of what is around him. Because of the sheer enormity of the concept of creation, it needs an equally enormous concept to explain it - and that is where religion starts.
It doesn't matter if you believe that the sun is responsible, of that thunder demands human sacrifice, or that an eclipse means the end of the world - the premise is exactly the same - it provides an explanation, an grounding point for thought processes that otherwise bother mankind because they simply cannot be explained.
This psychological desire to give massive happenings a base to believe from exists in another modern phenomenon - the conspiracy theory.
Take a seismic event like 911 - as soon as something like that happens, the conspiracy theorists leap into action. Of course, their meanderings are utterly bizarre - but the fulfil the basic human need to 'explain' something that otherwise we cannot comprehend.
So in conclusion - the theory of the origin of life by a blind series of chemical accidents seems utterly feasible to me. It is the notion of a 'higher power' that I can't get to grips with.
Absolutely! On a daily basis, by the miracles of nature that surround me in this wonderful world of ours.
But my wonder does not extend as far as saying that because creation is the marvel that it is - that means it must have been created by a sentient being - a 'god' if you will.
I believe that inbuilt in Man's psyche is the driven need to explain and understand and make sense of what is around him. Because of the sheer enormity of the concept of creation, it needs an equally enormous concept to explain it - and that is where religion starts.
It doesn't matter if you believe that the sun is responsible, of that thunder demands human sacrifice, or that an eclipse means the end of the world - the premise is exactly the same - it provides an explanation, an grounding point for thought processes that otherwise bother mankind because they simply cannot be explained.
This psychological desire to give massive happenings a base to believe from exists in another modern phenomenon - the conspiracy theory.
Take a seismic event like 911 - as soon as something like that happens, the conspiracy theorists leap into action. Of course, their meanderings are utterly bizarre - but the fulfil the basic human need to 'explain' something that otherwise we cannot comprehend.
So in conclusion - the theory of the origin of life by a blind series of chemical accidents seems utterly feasible to me. It is the notion of a 'higher power' that I can't get to grips with.
// then it follows that you must believe he made everything as it is now, because that's what the bible says. No evolution necessary.//
erm yes and no
In the C18 - people noticed inevitable change
https:/
in 1787 the Jedburgh disconintuity caused a bit of a stir - the geologial layer had twisted on itself and was pretty obviously a change and not created like that.
and here we are 200 y later arguing the toss about the very same things
Once the battle on geological evolution had beenw won ( 1800-1850) one might thinnk biological evolution was plain sailing - but no .....
all sorts of tin pot ideas are resurrected to deny the obvious
erm yes and no
In the C18 - people noticed inevitable change
https:/
in 1787 the Jedburgh disconintuity caused a bit of a stir - the geologial layer had twisted on itself and was pretty obviously a change and not created like that.
and here we are 200 y later arguing the toss about the very same things
Once the battle on geological evolution had beenw won ( 1800-1850) one might thinnk biological evolution was plain sailing - but no .....
all sorts of tin pot ideas are resurrected to deny the obvious
// At one time it was thought RNA was a precursor to DNA. I don't know if that is still the commonly accepted belief.//
I think the idea still gets up and runs OG
The difficulty with some changes is that they are obviously much more efficient than the precursor that the intermediate stages dont survive
Mammaiian eye is another example: Darwin said once the evolutiion of the mammalian eye had been worked out it would prove evolution
and funnily enough the crazies maintain that the mammailan eye has no precursors and so MUST have been created and so it proves that ( intelligent design )
I think the idea still gets up and runs OG
The difficulty with some changes is that they are obviously much more efficient than the precursor that the intermediate stages dont survive
Mammaiian eye is another example: Darwin said once the evolutiion of the mammalian eye had been worked out it would prove evolution
and funnily enough the crazies maintain that the mammailan eye has no precursors and so MUST have been created and so it proves that ( intelligent design )
Latest Posts
Sport6 mins ago
Only The A F D Can Save Germany
News8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago