On the origin of the species and the religion of Darwin

There has never been an argument made that shows how evolution could have created the DNA ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis Coral, if you were more insightful, I suspect that you would be quite embarrassed. But, apparently you are not. Anyway, as Write suggested in his fruitless attempt to throw pearls your way, there, indeed, are cogent hypotheses re: how DNA may have evolved, from a less complex self-replicating component. Juxtapose this with your idea that a mystical benevolent deity popped down to Earth to create DNA sometime after, I presume, having popped down to create RNA. If you can wrap your, less than insightful head around that, then perhaps it will occur to you, that it is not Write that should be playing with crayons.
OK, let us begin with reading and correctly understanding of the real the general definition of the word "evolution".
Full Definition of EVOLUTION 1: one of a set of prescribed movements 2a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved 3: the process of working out or developing 4a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory 5: the extraction of a mathematical root 6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution Evidence has shown that evolution of started long ago with the formation and evolution of the universe. Somewhere along the evolutionary line came the formation of RNA, a self-replicating non-living structure, proving that self replication is possible without the use of DNA. OK? The theory of self replication IS proven fact. Darwinian evolution is called "phylogeny"
Definition of PHYLOGENY 1: the evolutionary history of a kind of organism 2: the evolution of a genetically related group of organisms as distinguished from the development of the individual organism 3: the history or course of the development of something (as a word or custom) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phylogeny Before I start insisting that you must provide an alternative theory to "evolution", I will allow you to read (actually read and mentally process the information from the above links. But the question stands. There is no shame in admitting that you do not have one, but in tghat case, before you start criticizing what we do know, you will need to inform yourself at a much deeper level than you have displayed so far. Understanding comes from recorded scientific "knowledge", not from recorded theist scripture.
Seriously I hate to be like this, but a three year old can copy and paste others ideas. As for useless DNA, until DNA is fully understood, which it is not, labeling it's parts as useless, when the function of the entire biological computer operating system, which is what DNA is, is silly. Case in point, the spleen in humans was once considered useless and vestigial. Well the spleen is now believed to be used in healing damaged hearts. The appendix, is a storehouse of food digesting bacteria, a probiotic factory of sorts. Whoever claims to know everything about the structure and function of DNA, is just plain goofy, remembering that only the intelligent man can admit his ignorance, in the never ending quest for knowledge. Seriously, if you are 5 years old you are a genius, 10 and you are average, 20 or more and you draw your DNA diagrams with crayons.
[] What a poor looser you really are. Infantile
Before you begin to judge anyone on either side, get your quotations correct, please.

Sorry W4U, my bad.

Sorry W4U, my bad.
Accepted, I have done it myself. However it does bring up the question if you would have used the same wording if you had known that the post came from CS.
Sorry W4U, my bad.
Accepted, I have done it myself. However it does bring up the question if you would have used the same wording if you had recognized that post as coming from CS. I thought it was coming from CS. I do find him infantile though.
Sorry W4U, my bad.
Accepted, I have done it myself. However it does bring up the question if you would have used the same wording if you had recognized that post as coming from CS. I thought it was coming from CS. I do find him infantile though. HD, you have my respect sir.

Re the religion of Darwin. He started out as a Christian believer and once studied at a seminary. He later described himself as an agnostic, probably because he did not understand the actual definition of an atheist as one who has no belief in god. He was an atheist in actuality since he stated it by saying he was an agnostic that he had no belief in god. He misdefined the word atheist, as so many peopLe do, as someone who claims there is no god. An agnostic is not a third choice between theism and atheism. It is not a statement on belief. It is a statement on knowledge. Theists and atheists can also be agnostics.
He did not start another religion and none was started in his name.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin

There has never been an argument made that shows how evolution could have created the DNA ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis Coral, if you were more insightful, I suspect that you would be quite embarrassed. But, apparently you are not. Anyway, as Write suggested in his fruitless attempt to throw pearls your way, there, indeed, are cogent hypotheses re: how DNA may have evolved, from a less complex self-replicating component. Juxtapose this with your idea that a mystical benevolent deity popped down to Earth to create DNA sometime after, I presume, having popped down to create RNA. If you can wrap your, less than insightful head around that, then perhaps it will occur to you, that it is not Write that should be playing with crayons. A hypothesis is not a scientific fact, if the evolution from a warm pond were presented as a hypothesis, I would not be able to dissent with that hypothesis. However evolution, as the genesis of DNA, which is a required component for evolution to exist. is like saying that the sun created the light and heat to warm the Earth, before the Sun existed. These concepts are just not rational, as the Sun and Earth both formed from the same stellar debris, which is why Darwin skipped over the entire idea, and why every proponent of evolution today, will not even look at the complexity of the DNA, that Darwin never once saw.
Re the religion of Darwin. He started out as a Christian believer and once studied at a seminary. He later described himself as an agnostic, probably because he did not understand the actual definition of an atheist as one who has no belief in god. He was an atheist in actuality since he stated it by saying he was an agnostic that he had no belief in god. He misdefined the word atheist, as so many peopLe do, as someone who claims there is no god. An agnostic is not a third choice between theism and atheism. It is not a statement on belief. It is a statement on knowledge. Theists and atheists can also be agnostics. He did not start another religion and none was started in his name. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin
Lois this post has nothing to do with Darwin's religious beliefs at the time, it has to do with the secular religion of science and mathematics that Darwin spawned with his book. Darwin allows those who choose to believe that life spawned from a warm pond, to deny the existence of anything outside of our planet, it also allows these people to believe that we, the human race are the best and brightest species in the universe. There is just no evidence to support this, and there is great evidence to support the implausibility of this idea, as the DNA code, which causes evolution because of it's almost infinite complexity, could not have formed from randomness, in a warm pond. Again, this is like the sun, providing the light and heat for life on the Earth, before the Sun existed, it is a mathematical impossibility.
Sorry W4U, my bad.
Accepted, I have done it myself. However it does bring up the question if you would have used the same wording if you had recognized that post as coming from CS. I thought it was coming from CS. I do find him infantile though. HD, you have my respect sir. What you are doing, is having a side conversation, that allows you to be distracted from the facts that you can present no rational argument, as to how evolution, could be the genesis for the very DNA that is now known to be the source of that evolution. Evolution forming DNA, is no different than the Sun warming the Earth, before the Sun and Earth existed.
Evolution forming DNA, is no different than the Sun warming the Earth, before the Sun and Earth existed.
Seems you have missed the word RNA in this thread.
Evolution forming DNA, is no different than the Sun warming the Earth, before the Sun and Earth existed.
Seems you have missed the word RNA in this thread. So you are saying that RNA can form millions to billions of the lines of genetic code, that are needed for evolution. Do you even know what the purpose of RNA is? I doubt it, as if you did you would not be postulating such an irrational thought. RNA, is a nucleic acid present in all living cells. Its principal role is to act as a messenger carrying instructions from DNA for controlling the synthesis of proteins, although in some viruses RNA rather than DNA carries the genetic information. Anyway that this is viewed, both RNA and DNA can not predate the evolution that they help create. How can either RNA or DNA carry the genetic information of an organism that has not yet been formed? The only plausible answer, is that the organism and the codes that allow it to further exist, were created together. Same as a computer must be created along with a code system to allow it to perform primitive calculations.
On the religion of Darwinism http://www.religionofdarwinism.com/origins.html The study of comparative religion shows that a large number of superstitious religions have been influenced by one another, and many similarities can be detected in their beliefs and doctrines. The ancient pagan religions of Greece and Mesopotamia formed the basis of many modern religions which adopted their beliefs and doctrines. One superstitious religion that grew out of them is the religion of Darwinism. There are many similarities between Darwinism and other superstitious religions regarding their understanding of the formation of the universe and of living things and in their general beliefs and doctrines. Contrary to what a large number of people believe, Darwinism is not an established scientific theory based on facts, observation and experiment but merely a rationalistic attempt, based on a non-scientific foundation, to explain the universe. In the course of this book Darwinism will be compared with other manmade religions with regard to its origins, its founder, its scripture, its understanding of the world, and its missionary activities. Darwinism did not begin with the theory established by the amateur observations and investigations of Charles Darwin and other scientists in the 19th century. Its origins go back to much earlier materialist philosophies. Darwinist beliefs were first encountered a few thousand years ago in the polytheistic and materialistic religions of Greece and Sumeria. Therefore, Charles Darwin was not the first person to put forward the idea of evolution; he was an amateur researcher who traced the main outlines of this basic belief, gave form to its doctrines, and later established a theory.
Two points: Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is not a religion. Nuff said.
On the religion of Darwinism http://www.religionofdarwinism.com/origins.html The study of comparative religion shows that a large number of superstitious religions have been influenced by one another, and many similarities can be detected in their beliefs and doctrines. The ancient pagan religions of Greece and Mesopotamia formed the basis of many modern religions which adopted their beliefs and doctrines. One superstitious religion that grew out of them is the religion of Darwinism. There are many similarities between Darwinism and other superstitious religions regarding their understanding of the formation of the universe and of living things and in their general beliefs and doctrines. Contrary to what a large number of people believe, Darwinism is not an established scientific theory based on facts, observation and experiment but merely a rationalistic attempt, based on a non-scientific foundation, to explain the universe. In the course of this book Darwinism will be compared with other manmade religions with regard to its origins, its founder, its scripture, its understanding of the world, and its missionary activities. Darwinism did not begin with the theory established by the amateur observations and investigations of Charles Darwin and other scientists in the 19th century. Its origins go back to much earlier materialist philosophies. Darwinist beliefs were first encountered a few thousand years ago in the polytheistic and materialistic religions of Greece and Sumeria. Therefore, Charles Darwin was not the first person to put forward the idea of evolution; he was an amateur researcher who traced the main outlines of this basic belief, gave form to its doctrines, and later established a theory.
Two points: Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is not a religion. Nuff said. I have said that evolution is a fact, and used this fact to point out that evolution, which is the product of DNA, can not predate the DNA that it (evolution) is the product of. As for Darwinism, being compared to a religion, it's not my idea, you might try doing a Google search. http://www.religionofdarwinism.com/origins.html There are many similarities between Darwinism and other superstitious religions regarding their understanding of the formation of the universe and of living things and in their general beliefs and doctrines. Contrary to what a large number of people believe, Darwinism is not an established scientific theory based on facts, observation and experiment but merely a rationalistic attempt, based on a non-scientific foundation, to explain the universe. In the course of this book Darwinism will be compared with other manmade religions with regard to its origins, its founder, its scripture, its understanding of the world, and its missionary activities. The claim that lifeless matter can coalesce to form life has not been verified in any observation or experiment; it is an extra-scientific claim. Every living cell comes into existence from the division of another living cell. No one in the whole world, even in the most advanced laboratory, has succeeded in making a living cell from non-living material, which shows that the first cell was most certainly created with conscious intent.
So you are saying that RNA can form millions to billions of the lines of genetic code, that are needed for evolution.
No. Where did I say that?
...although in some viruses RNA rather than DNA carries the genetic information.
Exactly. Viruses are much simpler than real living cells, with their own metabolism. But maybe once there were other organisms, simpler than present bacteria, more complicated than viruses, that used much shorter RNA strings then our DNA now. And you forget that the interpreting mechanism can also be considered as bearer of hereditary information.
Anyway that this is viewed, both RNA and DNA can not predate the evolution that they help create. How can either RNA or DNA carry the genetic information of an organism that has not yet been formed?
So this is wrong as it can be. Very simple mechanisms can change in more complicated, that can evolute to still complicater mechanisms etc etc.
The only plausible answer, is that the organism and the codes that allow it to further exist, were created together. Same as a computer must be created along with a code system to allow it to perform primitive calculations.
No. And you make another error: not knowing how the mechanism exactly arose does not mean that it could not arise in a slow natural manner. Unless you can show the Designer at work an explanation of how life arose is open. It is definitely is not a proof for God. If you would go that way, then, to be scientific, you must explain what God is, and how he could do chemistry. If you suppose he did it just as we are doing it, then he was also a being of flesh and blood. An alien, maybe?
Re the religion of Darwin. He started out as a Christian believer and once studied at a seminary. He later described himself as an agnostic, probably because he did not understand the actual definition of an atheist as one who has no belief in god. He was an atheist in actuality since he stated it by saying he was an agnostic that he had no belief in god. He misdefined the word atheist, as so many peopLe do, as someone who claims there is no god. An agnostic is not a third choice between theism and atheism. It is not a statement on belief. It is a statement on knowledge. Theists and atheists can also be agnostics. He did not start another religion and none was started in his name. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin
Lois this post has nothing to do with Darwin's religious beliefs at the time, it has to do with the secular religion of science and mathematics that Darwin spawned with his book. Darwin allows those who choose to believe that life spawned from a warm pond, to deny the existence of anything outside of our planet, it also allows these people to believe that we, the human race are the best and brightest species in the universe. Presumably you include yourself in this defintion of "people." There is just no evidence to support this, and there is great evidence to support the implausibility of this idea, as the DNA code, which causes evolution because of it's almost infinite complexity, could not have formed from randomness, in a warm pond. Again, this is like the sun, providing the light and heat for life on the Earth, before the Sun existed, it is a mathematical impossibility. You have objective proof that he was wrong, right? We're waiting to hear you present it. So far, all you've done is make baseless statements. Baseless statements are not evidence of anything but your inability to think rationally. Lois
Sorry W4U, my bad.
Accepted, I have done it myself. However it does bring up the question if you would have used the same wording if you had recognized that post as coming from CS. I thought it was coming from CS. I do find him infantile though. HD, you have my respect sir. What you are doing, is having a side conversation, that allows you to be distracted from the facts that you can present no rational argument, as to how evolution, could be the genesis for the very DNA that is now known to be the source of that evolution. Evolution forming DNA, is no different than the Sun warming the Earth, before the Sun and Earth existed. Being scientifically illiterate must be very hard on your self esteem.
Nonsense. It seems to be a dismissal of evolution from a kind of mystical Islamic POV. There may well be a vague similarity between ancient pagan beliefs and some Darwinian concepts, but that doesn't prove evolution is false.
This entertaining lecture by Neil Tyson may be of interest in context of old, but persistent beliefs. I was impressed with his conclusion that the way the Universe functions, rather than exhibiting "Intelligent Design", points to a non-intelligent "Stupid Design" which threatens our existence every day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo Indeed, that's an excellent point. Nobody posits a stupid designer--or a sadistic one. Lois The amazing part to me is that this nut actually thinks he is scoring points with outrageous claims he can not support and doesn't even try to support with any credible source. He is clueless that this forum community only cares about well supported, logical, and reasoned arguments. He probably thinks there is an audience reading this forum awarding style points for his blustering self righteous mental masturbations. It's business as usual when it comes to true believers. Lois
Sorry W4U, my bad.
Accepted, I have done it myself. However it does bring up the question if you would have used the same wording if you had recognized that post as coming from CS. I thought it was coming from CS. I do find him infantile though. HD, you have my respect sir. What you are doing, is having a side conversation, that allows you to be distracted from the facts that you can present no rational argument, as to how evolution, could be the genesis for the very DNA that is now known to be the source of that evolution. Evolution forming DNA, is no different than the Sun warming the Earth, before the Sun and Earth existed. Being scientifically illiterate must be very hard on your self esteem. You should know this from the inside out better than anyone. Lois
So you are saying that RNA can form millions to billions of the lines of genetic code, that are needed for evolution.
No. Where did I say that?
...although in some viruses RNA rather than DNA carries the genetic information.
Exactly. Viruses are much simpler than real living cells, with their own metabolism. But maybe once there were other organisms, simpler than present bacteria, more complicated than viruses, that used much shorter RNA strings then our DNA now. And you forget that the interpreting mechanism can also be considered as bearer of hereditary information.
Anyway that this is viewed, both RNA and DNA can not predate the evolution that they help create. How can either RNA or DNA carry the genetic information of an organism that has not yet been formed?
So this is wrong as it can be. Very simple mechanisms can change in more complicated, that can evolute to still complicater mechanisms etc etc.
The only plausible answer, is that the organism and the codes that allow it to further exist, were created together. Same as a computer must be created along with a code system to allow it to perform primitive calculations.
No. And you make another error: not knowing how the mechanism exactly arose does not mean that it could not arise in a slow natural manner. Unless you can show the Designer at work an explanation of how life arose is open. It is definitely is not a proof for God. If you would go that way, then, to be scientific, you must explain what God is, and how he could do chemistry. If you suppose he did it just as we are doing it, then he was also a being of flesh and blood. An alien, maybe? So viruses are not real living cells in your world, the fact that they are simpler than other types of organism cells does not make them not real, it just makes them different. You are implying that the common cold, is caused by something that is not real. Which is illogical, and again is not science.