Presenting the complexity of getting to DNA directly from a chemical soup is 
barking up the wrong tree as life probably evolved after it had developed auto 
catalyzing peptides through a phase of RNA based life. The origins of life most 
likely used some -- as yet unkown -- simpler information repository that could 
be assembled through non-enzymatic means. Chemically simpler -- and easier to 
assemble -- RNA like polymers exist that have been suggested as a candidate and 
some of these polymer chains have been shown to be able to (in laboratory 
conditions) act as a template for the formation of complimentary transcribed 
strands of RNA. In the anoxic conditions of early earth iron may have played a 
role in this first genesis.
 
 You present the picture -- after billions of years of evolution and say how 
could life have gotten here without a designer -- as if it got here from 
nothing in a single leap -- but you ignore that over billions of years an 
astronomically huge number of variations on all manner of themes can be tried 
out, and that over time incremental change can set the stage for radical leaps 
(for example moving from RNA based life to DNA based life)
 
The move to the more stable and higher fidelity DNA double helix no doubt took 
a lot of time (the precursor enzymes etc. needed to be available first) and may 
have evolved more than once as well. There is evidence from comparative 
genomics, structural biology that the specific enzymes involved in the 
synthesis of DNA precursors, retro-transcription of RNA templates and 
replication of single and double-stranded DNA molecules evolved independently 
and on several occasions. 
 
DNA is chemically quite similar to RNA and in modern cellular biology DNA 
building blocks are in fact assembled from RNA precursors -- which itself 
suggests that DNA evolved from RNA.
 
Their is a fair amount of enzymatic and other evidence that suggest life 
evolved from RNA based genetic encoding to the DNA double helix (RNA is, in 
fact, vital and still very central to cellular chemistry of life -- as an 
intermediary information messenger -- mRNA -- (and ribosomal actor perhaps) -- 
transcribed from DNA gene regions onto complimentary strands of RNA transcript 
using the enzyme RNA polymerase)
 
There is evidence for RNA having filled the role that DNA now plays  -- at the 
enzymatic and biochemical level -- for example in how mRNA catalyzes the 
building of peptides by ribosomes.
 
We do not know for sure how life began on our planet (or even if it began here 
or was transported here -- the pangenesis hypothesis) -- whatever and however 
it was a very long time ago. However there is evidence buried in the DNA, the 
cellular organelles (ribosomes, mitochondria etc.) & biochemical processes and 
artifacts of present day living things that provide intriguing hints of earlier 
intermediary stages that life may have evolved through.
 
 
May I suggest reading these extracts: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26876/

It is a fascinating story that is still being unraveled by curious minds and 
denied by minds who need a neatly packaged explanation and who abdicate the 
attempt to discover genesis by invoking a designer. 
 
I am aware that -- true believers in a created universe, will not be convinced, 
for there is nothing that can be said or done that can reach into the mind of a 
believer safely sedimented by their dogma.
 
  

________________________________
 From: Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net>
To: "- mindbr...@yahoogroups.com" <mindbr...@yahoogroups.com>; everything-list 
<everything-list@googlegroups.com>; 4dworldx <4dwor...@yahoogroups.com>; 
"inclusional...@jiscmail.ac.uk" <inclusional...@jiscmail.ac.uk>; 
"inclusional...@yahoogroups.com" <inclusional...@yahoogroups.com>; plamen 
simeonov <plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com>; theoretical_physics 
<theoretical_phys...@yahoogroups.com> 
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 5:19 AM
Subject: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
  


 
Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong.  

The irreducible complexity of DNA.  See attached. 

 
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] 
See my Leibniz site at 
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough  


The listing of the attachments is as 
following: 
  (1) The remarkable language of DNA.pdf (617.8 
K)
 
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] 
See my Leibniz site at 
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to