Creation vs Evolution

Originally posted by Alliance
Thats what they thought in the 60s. Besides, if stars can make amino acids, then they can be on earth too. besides, a cell is a hell of a lot more than one amino acid and one protein, especially since proteins are made of amino acids. those two things get you nowhere.

way to double post and be off topic.

Arent we the Smug one. Was i incorect in thinking the topic was Creation vs evolution? My point was that the fusion was of the many different monomers(amino acids) to make a protien which is the basic building block for a cell. Forgive me for not makeing that more clear for the Ph.D's in Biology out there.

Originally posted by Versyn Gaul
Its hard for me to believe that an Amino acid and a protein were zapped in a primordial soup to create a single cell. And for that matter were did the Protein and amino acid come from?

With enough time, hundreds of millions of years, of large tides that covered the early Earth, and the right set of chemistry, I do believe that life, as we know it, can evolve.

I heard a good one today “If we evolved from apes why are there still apes?” 😆

Originally posted by ThePittman
I heard a good one today “If we evolved from apes why are there still apes?” 😆

hah classic 💃

Originally posted by ThePittman
I heard a good one today “If we evolved from apes why are there still apes?” 😆

We did not evolve from apes, we are apes. Hominid is a type of ape. We evolved from a common ancestor with Chimpanzees.

Originally posted by Versyn Gaul
Its hard for me to believe that an Amino acid and a protein were zapped in a primordial soup to create a single cell. And for that matter were did the Protein and amino acid come from?

Experiments have shown that many of these compounds could self-assemble in an early-earth environment. Fragments of RNA have even been shown to form.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Experiments have shown that many of these compounds could self-assemble in an early-earth environment. Fragments of RNA have even been shown to form.

So I'm curious . What was the attractor? and where did the nucleic acid or the enzymes essential for covalent bonding come from. Was this all star dust? I'm not arguing i am sincere in my wanting to know.

Originally posted by Versyn Gaul
So I'm curious . What was the attractor? and where did the nucleic acid or the enzymes essential for covalent bonding come from. Was this all star dust? I'm not arguing i am sincere in my wanting to know.

Everything is star dust.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We did not evolve from apes, we are apes. Hominid is a type of ape. We evolved from a common ancestor with Chimpanzees.

If Humans are a product of evolution(Evolving to a Superior animal) would not the inferior animal cease to exist?

Wow Star dust is some high powered substance

Originally posted by Versyn Gaul
If Humans are a product of evolution(Evolving to a Superior animal) would not the inferior animal cease to exist?

Superior has nothing to do with it, and the animal that we evolved from is not alive on the Earth right now.

Originally posted by Versyn Gaul
Wow Star dust is some high powered substance

In the Big Bang, Hydrogen and Helium where created, all other elements where made in stars.

Originally posted by Versyn Gaul
So I'm curious . What was the attractor? and where did the nucleic acid or the enzymes essential for covalent bonding come from. Was this all star dust? I'm not arguing i am sincere in my wanting to know.

Biology 7th edition by Campbell and Reece

Edit: I'd also like to mention that the "inferior" animal that came before man does not exist anymore. Heidelbergensis has been gone for quite some time.

Originally posted by Versyn Gaul
Arent we the Smug one. Was i incorect in thinking the topic was Creation vs evolution? My point was that the fusion was of the many different monomers(amino acids) to make a protien which is the basic building block for a cell. Forgive me for not makeing that more clear for the Ph.D's in Biology out there.

I don't have a PhD in biology, I don't even have a degree, though i could get one at this point.

the condensation of amino acids to make proteins is not a process that likely took place at the beginning of life, nor are proteins the building blocks of the cell. A cell is much more than protein, the most obviousl component being the lipid bilayer.

the first machines were ribozymes (RNA) and protein was likely only incorporated later. The basic building block of a cell is more appropriately. If you're looking for a better model than one that 50 years old, look to Carl Woese's research.

Originally posted by Versyn Gaul
If Humans are a product of evolution(Evolving to a Superior animal) would not the inferior animal cease to exist?

I understand that ribosymes are required for protein synthesis.RNA is nucleic acid consisting of a nucleotide, nucleotide is a covalent bonded carbon and nitrogen to a phosphate group which is necessary for energy transference. This is what my point was earlier. This all just HAPPENED? And all life, of the millions of forms, came from the same original RNA? Don't get me wrong , I Don't believe in Adam And Eve but this is equally hard to believe.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Biology 7th edition by Campbell and Reece

Edit: I'd also like to mention that the "inferior" animal that came before man does not exist anymore. Heidelbergensis has been gone for quite some time.

and what was before Heidelbergensis?

Originally posted by Versyn Gaul
I understand that ribosymes are required for protein synthesis.RNA is nucleic acid consisting of a nucleotide, nucleotide is a covalent bonded carbon and nitrogen to a phosphate group which is necessary for energy transference. This is what my point was earlier. This all just HAPPENED? And all life, of the millions of forms, came from the same original RNA? Don't get me wrong , I Don't believe in Adam And Eve but this is equally hard to believe.

Only if you believe that life is somehow unique from non-life. Life is simple the byproduct of bio/chemistry. There is no real difference between life an non-life at the most fundamental level.

Originally posted by Versyn Gaul
I understand that ribosymes are required for protein synthesis.RNA is nucleic acid consisting of a nucleotide, nucleotide is a covalent bonded carbon and nitrogen to a phosphate group which is necessary for energy transference. This is what my point was earlier. This all just HAPPENED? And all life, of the millions of forms, came from the same original RNA? Don't get me wrong , I Don't believe in Adam And Eve but this is equally hard to believe.

it all depends on the chemical environment. Things don't happen at the cellular level because you want them too, they are biochemical reactions that must take place given the chemical environment. I don't really study this stuff and there are a lot of gaps, but in certain chemical environments, these things build up. Especially if you look at it in the context of a cooling earth, more complex structures can crystallize from primitive "biomass".

Originally posted by Versyn Gaul
and what was before Heidelbergensis?

Pretty sure it was H. ergaster after heidelbergensis, and habilis before ergaster.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Pretty sure it was H. ergaster after heidelbergensis, and habilis before ergaster.

So would there not need to be millions of different RNA sequences to produce different branchings of life. If it all came from the same original RNA Protein synthesis then how does science account for the different variations of life.