Organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester was able to show the formation of ribonucleotides (building blocks of rna) under conditions similar to earths early years. That leap of astronomical odds creationists claim is necessary for life to have evolved is becoming demonstratively even less credible with every such discovery.God is running out of gaps to hide in.
Posts
RNA and DNA are not living things. They are information storage areas for living things. A preexisting, living cell is still needed to process that information.
ReplyDeleteBesides the supposed environment necessary to form RNA would also be very capable of destroying said RNA. Do they really think it hung out long enough in pristine condition until a cell magically formed?
God is running out of gaps to hide in.
ReplyDelete- - - - - -
Wrong again.
Wow Kreitsauce, how to assume it's not possible before even seeing the evidence!
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, RNA is not a living thing - agreed - but in early earth environments RNA have been shown to operate in a way that is consistent with evolution. This leads to the hypothesis that perhaps this is how life started on the Earth. With further testing, we might be able to show that this is in fact how life started.
Kreitsauce, you would make a bad scientist. You're assuming it's not possible before you've even seen any evidence or tested it. A real scientist accepts a plausible hypothesis and tests it to see if, at any point, it is acceptable to graduate it from a hypothesis (to something like, say, a THEORY).
As to whether or not RNA is the source of early life on this planet, my answer is a solid MAYBE. It's possible and looks promising (from a combination of this study and a few others I've seen), but we don't know enough yet to say for sure.