Atheists are hoping aliens from outer space will contact us...

[Boss]

You have been mentioning many times about how the perfect ratio of forces in our universe allow our universe to exist, and is therefore a sign that "god" exists because of the precise nature of the ratios.

I have been trying to tell you that the ratio of forces in our universe is not perfect.

Our universe is expanding, which you agree with, and eventually that expansion is going to lead to the end of the universe.

So the ratio of forces is not perfect in this universe, as should be expected by a perfect "Creator" like you suggest.

And now you're changing your tune to save face because you realize I'm right. Go back and look at your posts, before this turns into another slapping battle.

You can't change your tune in the middle of a song.

I did not use the word "perfect" anywhere in my commentary. That is all you baby. I also didn't say "ratio of forces" ...not sure what that means. I said there are several immutable dimensionless physical constants that must be fine tuned as they are for a universe to exist and life to exist in it. I do not know what a "perfect" universe would be since I am a mortal human without the capability to know what perfection in a universe actually is.

I also didn't say "this is a sign god exists." I merely pointed out this is something physics hasn't explained and perhaps there is a spiritual explanation. Do you see a difference in what I say and what you are interpreting? Saying "this IS..." happens to be very different than suggesting a possibility of something.

From my perspective, there are no "slapping battles" between you and I. While you flail at me like a little girl, I beat you down like a pimp on his crack ho. It embarasses you, so you respond by being rude and holding a grudge.

 

[Boss]

You don't believe in God. As you have said.

Again, not something I have ever said. This is something you've derived based on my criticism of organized religions.

It is only tuned enough for our universe to last as long as it will. Other universes last longer and shorter. It is chance. Not a "God" that you don't believe in.

REALLY? Where are these "other universes" I can observe and evaluate for myself? Or maybe you mean imaginary universes like the one you live in where you can arbitrarily decide what constitutes perfect universes?

When our sun dies it will NOT become a black hole. Where are you getting this from?

Physics.

Eventually the universe will expand to the point that atoms expand and break apart, and then subatomic particles expand to even smaller particles, up until the point that all particles revert back to their initial state of potential energy.

Preposterous and not supportable with science.

When our universe reaches the point where all matter has been converted back to energy through expansion, it is ready to be reused for the next universe. This happens constantly.

Wow... this is amazing since you are a human being who has only existed in THIS universe. Pardon my skepticism but until you can show me some other universes and/or the natural cycle you are claiming happens constantly, I can't accept this from you. It may be your THEORY this is what happens, but it's MY theory that God creates universes whenever God feels inclined.... see how that works?

Only a perfect ratio from a perfect Creator will allow for a universe to exist forever.

So do you have a special funny hat that you wear as we genuflect toward you, O Mighty Physics God?

 

[RWS]

You don't believe in God. As you have said.

Again, not something I have ever said. This is something you've derived based on my criticism of organized religions.

It is only tuned enough for our universe to last as long as it will. Other universes last longer and shorter. It is chance. Not a "God" that you don't believe in.

REALLY? Where are these "other universes" I can observe and evaluate for myself? Or maybe you mean imaginary universes like the one you live in where you can arbitrarily decide what constitutes perfect universes?

When our sun dies it will NOT become a black hole. Where are you getting this from?

Physics.

Eventually the universe will expand to the point that atoms expand and break apart, and then subatomic particles expand to even smaller particles, up until the point that all particles revert back to their initial state of potential energy.

Preposterous and not supportable with science.

When our universe reaches the point where all matter has been converted back to energy through expansion, it is ready to be reused for the next universe. This happens constantly.

Wow... this is amazing since you are a human being who has only existed in THIS universe. Pardon my skepticism but until you can show me some other universes and/or the natural cycle you are claiming happens constantly, I can't accept this from you. It may be your THEORY this is what happens, but it's MY theory that God creates universes whenever God feels inclined.... see how that works?

Only a perfect ratio from a perfect Creator will allow for a universe to exist forever.

So do you have a special funny hat that you wear as we genuflect toward you, O Mighty Physics God?

Have you been hacked, Boss?

Just asking before I respond further, because you're saying ludicrous things that i wouldn't expect you to, based on my knowledge of you and your protection of future posts. Or are you just arguing the opposite again for giggles?

Just to start, about our sun turning into a black hole...
HubbleSite - Reference Desk - FAQs
Will The Sun Become A Black Hole When It Dies?
And endless more...

 

[Boss]

Have you been hacked, Boss?

Just asking before I respond further, because you're saying ludicrous things that i wouldn't expect you to, based on my knowledge of you and your protection of future posts. Or are you just arguing the opposite again for giggles?

Just to start, about our sun turning into a black hole...
HubbleSite - Reference Desk - FAQs
Will The Sun Become A Black Hole When It Dies?
And endless more...

Okay... so you want a cookie from me or something? Congrats... you found someone to argue our sun won't create a black hole because it's too small. Newsflash: IT DOESN'T MATTER! When our sun dies, we're fucked! Anyway, I am pretty sure our solar system will be consumed by a black hole eventually... probably the one in the center of our galaxy. But again... you and I will be long gone, so I won't be able to tell you that I told you so.

Was that ALL you had to throw at me? That's incredibly weak, even for you.

 

[RWS]

No, I'm just wondering why you would say something like that. I have a teeny bit of respect for you, so when you say things like that, I have to question if you've been hacked.

But if you haven't, obviously your physics are waaaaay off, somewhere in lala land. And you should not be arguing other physics stuff that I can easily prove.

You're the one that argued it as truth. For whatever reason.

And yes, I would like a cookie.

 

[Boss]

No, I'm just wondering why you would say something like that. I have a teeny bit of respect for you, so when you say things like that, I have to question if you've been hacked.

But if you haven't, obviously your physics are waaaaay off, somewhere in lala land. And you should not be arguing other physics stuff that I can easily prove.

You're the one that argued it as truth. For whatever reason.

And yes, I would like a cookie.

Well go back and review what I actually SAID...

"Many billions of years from now, our sun will die and collapse. A black hole will consume everything in our solar system. "

You will note there are TWO sentences here. I did not state that OUR sun will create a black hole. I realize that's how you interpreted it and that's probably my fault for not making myself clearer, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you're going to strut around acting like you've gotten one over on me, then let's go back to what I actually SAID and not what you THINK I said.

Now, for the record, suns certainly DO collapse and turn into black holes. That's where black holes come from. So my physics are not way off in lala land at all. But even IF there is an error on my part regarding one trivial detail, that doesn't mean anything I say on physics is automatically wrong. What you are pulling is a very dishonest debate tactic and if this were a formal debate, you'd be disqualified on that basis alone.

So... that said, let's get back to some of your lala land comments... like:

"Other universes last longer and shorter"

Let's see your evidence for this?

Or this...

"Eventually the universe will expand to the point that atoms expand and break apart, and then subatomic particles expand to even smaller particles, up until the point that all particles revert back to their initial state of potential energy."

Given your propensity to interpret things that simply aren't said, I can't help but wonder if you've heard something that you've misunderstood. I know for a fact that we've not discovered other universes. So how can we possibly know if they last longer or shorter? Or if they even exist? I know for a fact that atoms aren't going to expand and break apart because when we split atoms apart, tremendous energy is released along with subatomic particles. I know that subatomic particles aren't going to expand to even smaller particles because subatomic particles are made of quarks and leptons.

Because the universe is expanding, doesn't mean the matter in the universe is also expanding. I mean, this is easily debunked just by looking at planet Earth and the atoms that comprise it. Do you believe the Earth's atoms have been expanding for 4.5 billion years with the universe? This is just child-like nonsense.

 

[MarkDuffy]

What ARE you saying?

For evolution to be true, all life must have an information molecule that is different from DNA?

That is crazy

Okay, it's more complicated than simply saying "evolution is true" or "evolution is not true."

I have said that MICRO-evolution (evoultion within a genus taxon) is true. We have substantial evidence for this and DNA even lends support to this theory. It's how we have black bears, polar bears and grizzly bears.

What is not supported with any finding is MACRO-evolution. That is the concept that every living thing has evolved from a universal common ancestor. IF this were true, DNA would be virtually the same in all living things. All living things have DNA but the DNA is unique. Each DNA has a specific combination of amino acids and proteins and these are not interchangeable. The DNA for humans has a completely different type of amino acids and proteins than the DNA of a chimpanzee, even though the structure of our DNA is remarkably similar.

To compound the problem, the amino acids and proteins seem to be unique to the DNA itself. It is as if the DNA is required to produce these amino acids and proteins which enable the DNA to exist. So how does the DNA exist to produce amino acids and proteins essential for the DNA to exist? We don't have an explanation.

This is just dumb. The DNA for humans and other apes is biochemically the same. The DNA sequences differ by only a few percent. There is no problem there, only in your mind. Humans ARE apes.

Which came first, nucleic acids or proteins?

Ever heard of RNA, the primitive nucleic acid?

 

[MarkDuffy]

Human centric thinking has always limited progress and led to incorrect belief. In the case of "Life" outside our planet it is expanded beyond "Human" centric into carbon and DNA. Who's to say there aren't Silicon squid swimming in the Methane lakes of Titan or Hydrogen blimp bladder thingys floating in the clouds of Jupiter. Hell, just extremophiles or deep sea vent worms on Earth should be enough to make people think twice.

Silicon does not form chain molecules important for life. It is too brittle.

 

[MarkDuffy]

What that eventually means, is that molecules will separate into atoms, and atoms will separate to sub-atomic particles, and so on. We'll eventually go back to the cosmic "soup" or energy that created this universe, and start over. It happens constantly.

I don't think you can support this with actual science. The atoms of molecules are not growing apart. Subatomic particles in atoms are not growing apart. The universe is rapidly expanding and the expansion is accelerating. It's certainly not "going back" to anything. Now, we've known the universe is expanding for about 100 years or so. It wasn't until the mid '60s that we began to discover the acceleration. This is very problematic for the cyclical universe theory.

What we expected physics to show is that the universe is expanding (from the Big Bang) but that friction produces a slowing rate. Eventually, the expansion would reach equilibrium and gravitational forces would result in contraction. According to laws of motion we should've discovered an expanding but slowing universe... we didn't. So this whole entire idea that our universe is cyclical and everlasting has now become obsolete.

I'm just sayin that the idea that our universe has the perfect ratios that boss mentions, to have the particle interactions that we observe, is not perfect.

Our universe has several immutable dimensionless physical constants. Where did those come from? The only viable explanation I've ever heard is Multiverse theory. That there are an endless number of universes and ours just happens to be the one with finely tuned physical constants to make matter and life possible. The only real problem with that theory is, it can never be validated because we can't observe other universes. What we're left with is faith in a theory that can never be proved or disproved.... exactly the same as belief in a Creator.

I agree, and I can support that with actual science. The way the universe is going due to constantly rapid expansion, eventually means that everything dissipates until the point that our sub-atomic particles become energy again. And we go back to the original energy field. Expansion in space is also acting on expansion in particles.

The laws of physics that govern this universe, cannot sustain an eternal universe. The ratio is wrong. Our universe will continue to expand and revert back to energy. Therefore, our universe is not perfect, but just one that has lasted long enough to create intelligent life. They all will, given they survive long enough. Our universe will end, due to the math being incorrect for us. But that doesn't mean there are other universes that can last longer, and maybe forever, that have the better ratios.

So we are not a "perfect" universe. We're just one that will last a few trillion years.

This is a pretty weird hypothesis. LOL.

 

[MarkDuffy]

I agree, and I can support that with actual science. The way the universe is going due to constantly rapid expansion, eventually means that everything dissipates until the point that our sub-atomic particles become energy again. And we go back to the original energy field. Expansion in space is also acting on expansion in particles.

The laws of physics that govern this universe, cannot sustain an eternal universe. The ratio is wrong. Our universe will continue to expand and revert back to energy. Therefore, our universe is not perfect, but just one that has lasted long enough to create intelligent life. They all will, given they survive long enough. Our universe will end, due to the math being incorrect for us. But that doesn't mean there are other universes that can last longer, and maybe forever, that have the better ratios.

So we are not a "perfect" universe. We're just one that will last a few trillion years.

I don't understand this "perfect universe" thing you keep mentioning. Is anything other than God perfect? I mean, we can find faults in everything, including the universe. This doesn't change the fact that our universe has a set of constants and ratios which are curiously fine tuned for life and matter to exist. Will it last eternally? No... only God is eternal.

You are making a point about subatomic particles becoming energy again. I've never heard this from any credible physicist. In fact, this contradicts physics because energy can't be created or destroyed. Many billions of years from now, our sun will die and collapse. A black hole will consume everything in our solar system. The universe will still be here, still expanding, still accelerating, Eventually, the universe will probably expand to the point there will be no way to support life anywhere.

When the universe reaches this point, there is nothing to explain how it somehow regenerates itself. Maybe it will? Perhaps God IS the universe? What I have written about is the theory of a cyclical universe which expands and contracts back into a singularity. There is no longer any evidence to support that theory.

Yes his hypothesis is weird.

More correctly, matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed as a total. They can be converted to each other. Energy can create particle/antiparticle pair.

Matter creation - Wikipedia

Fission, fusion, particle decay & matter/antimatter collisions create energy from matter.

 

[MarkDuffy]

What ARE you saying?

For evolution to be true, all life must have an information molecule that is different from DNA?

That is crazy

Okay, it's more complicated than simply saying "evolution is true" or "evolution is not true."

I have said that MICRO-evolution (evoultion within a genus taxon) is true. We have substantial evidence for this and DNA even lends support to this theory. It's how we have black bears, polar bears and grizzly bears.

What is not supported with any finding is MACRO-evolution. That is the concept that every living thing has evolved from a universal common ancestor. IF this were true, DNA would be virtually the same in all living things. All living things have DNA but the DNA is unique. Each DNA has a specific combination of amino acids and proteins and these are not interchangeable. The DNA for humans has a completely different type of amino acids and proteins than the DNA of a chimpanzee, even though the structure of our DNA is remarkably similar.

To compound the problem, the amino acids and proteins seem to be unique to the DNA itself. It is as if the DNA is required to produce these amino acids and proteins which enable the DNA to exist. So how does the DNA exist to produce amino acids and proteins essential for the DNA to exist? We don't have an explanation.

Yes you are using the modern Intelligent Design argument with a bit of nonsense thrown in. Microevolution is true, but macroevolution is not to IDers. You all even invented the two terms. It was the modern faith argument when science had showed speciation to be a fact. The logic is same as the missing link which can always be argued to be true. If we find a missing link, you all declare we just created two new gaps, one on each side of the newly found missing link.

You really should not try using DNA as the difference, it just does not work for your argument. It works for ours!

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetings/baylor2009/papers/ASA2009Campbell.pdf

Your macroevolution mainly occurred in the past, especially the precambrian soup. Many Phyla experiments arose that later went extinct. That was in a constant opening of new environments. Once the planet got full, sea, river, air & land, your macroevolution becomes much harder. Life is finely tuned to its environment and natural selection works AGAINST such huge changes now.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Let's say all or most life was wiped out in an area. While there would be selective pressure for new macroevolution, it would also be in competition of recolonization from existing species with the possibility of the existent colonizers evolving a bit. Speciation might not even occur, just the population genetics of the species would. We call this genetic flow.

 

[MarkDuffy]

You have been mentioning many times about how the perfect ratio of forces in our universe allow our universe to exist, and is therefore a sign that "god" exists because of the precise nature of the ratios.

I have been trying to tell you that the ratio of forces in our universe is not perfect.

Our universe is expanding, which you agree with, and eventually that expansion is going to lead to the end of the universe.

So the ratio of forces is not perfect in this universe, as should be expected by a perfect "Creator" like you suggest.

And now you're changing your tune to save face because you realize I'm right. Go back and look at your posts, before this turns into another slapping battle.

You can't change your tune in the middle of a song.

I did not use the word "perfect" anywhere in my commentary. That is all you baby. I also didn't say "ratio of forces" ...not sure what that means. I said there are several immutable dimensionless physical constants that must be fine tuned as they are for a universe to exist and life to exist in it. I do not know what a "perfect" universe would be since I am a mortal human without the capability to know what perfection in a universe actually is.

I also didn't say "this is a sign god exists." I merely pointed out this is something physics hasn't explained and perhaps there is a spiritual explanation. Do you see a difference in what I say and what you are interpreting? Saying "this IS..." happens to be very different than suggesting a possibility of something.

From my perspective, there are no "slapping battles" between you and I. While you flail at me like a little girl, I beat you down like a pimp on his crack ho. It embarasses you, so you respond by being rude and holding a grudge.

You mean you think physical constants are special. I don't. Different constants would produce a possible different universe and if they produced one w/o us, we wouldn't care cuz we would not be here to wonder about it.

I believe life and us are a direct result of the chemistry of the periodic table.

 

[MarkDuffy]

You don't believe in God. As you have said.

Again, not something I have ever said. This is something you've derived based on my criticism of organized religions.

It is only tuned enough for our universe to last as long as it will. Other universes last longer and shorter. It is chance. Not a "God" that you don't believe in.

REALLY? Where are these "other universes" I can observe and evaluate for myself? Or maybe you mean imaginary universes like the one you live in where you can arbitrarily decide what constitutes perfect universes?

When our sun dies it will NOT become a black hole. Where are you getting this from?

Physics.

Eventually the universe will expand to the point that atoms expand and break apart, and then subatomic particles expand to even smaller particles, up until the point that all particles revert back to their initial state of potential energy.

Preposterous and not supportable with science.

When our universe reaches the point where all matter has been converted back to energy through expansion, it is ready to be reused for the next universe. This happens constantly.

Wow... this is amazing since you are a human being who has only existed in THIS universe. Pardon my skepticism but until you can show me some other universes and/or the natural cycle you are claiming happens constantly, I can't accept this from you. It may be your THEORY this is what happens, but it's MY theory that God creates universes whenever God feels inclined.... see how that works?

Only a perfect ratio from a perfect Creator will allow for a universe to exist forever.

So do you have a special funny hat that you wear as we genuflect toward you, O Mighty Physics God?

Our G2 population I sun is tiny & pitiful, but perfect for life! Not big enough to produce a black hole; that is for massive stars following supernova stage. Our sun will end with a whimper, not even a red giant stage, more like a red dwarf. Then the planetary nebula stage. Then a tiny white dwarf until it burns out.

The Once & Future Sun

 

[there4eyeM]

Perfect is a human concept with no external reference or meaning. The universe could as easily be called perfect as it is. There is no proof it could be any other way, there being the implicit impossibility of objective (external) observation.
Even a non-atheist might be glad to see extraterrestrials arrive with proof all major religions are wrong.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Perfect is a human concept with no external reference or meaning. The universe could as easily be called perfect as it is. There is no proof it could be any other way, there being the implicit impossibility of objective (external) observation.
Even a non-atheist might be glad to see extraterrestrials arrive with proof all major religions are wrong.

True!

I have a huge problem with a "perfect" God. We are surrounded by examples of his failures.

Of course believers use the same excuse as game developers. That is not a bug, it is a FEATURE!

LOL

 

[Boss]

What ARE you saying?

For evolution to be true, all life must have an information molecule that is different from DNA?

That is crazy

Okay, it's more complicated than simply saying "evolution is true" or "evolution is not true."

I have said that MICRO-evolution (evoultion within a genus taxon) is true. We have substantial evidence for this and DNA even lends support to this theory. It's how we have black bears, polar bears and grizzly bears.

What is not supported with any finding is MACRO-evolution. That is the concept that every living thing has evolved from a universal common ancestor. IF this were true, DNA would be virtually the same in all living things. All living things have DNA but the DNA is unique. Each DNA has a specific combination of amino acids and proteins and these are not interchangeable. The DNA for humans has a completely different type of amino acids and proteins than the DNA of a chimpanzee, even though the structure of our DNA is remarkably similar.

To compound the problem, the amino acids and proteins seem to be unique to the DNA itself. It is as if the DNA is required to produce these amino acids and proteins which enable the DNA to exist. So how does the DNA exist to produce amino acids and proteins essential for the DNA to exist? We don't have an explanation.

This is just dumb. The DNA for humans and other apes is biochemically the same. The DNA sequences differ by only a few percent. There is no problem there, only in your mind. Humans ARE apes.

Which came first, nucleic acids or proteins?

Ever heard of RNA, the primitive nucleic acid?

Humans are NOT apes. If we were, we could breed with apes. The biochemistry is NOT the same, if it were, there would be no reason for the RNA World theory your article is about. I already said the DNA structure (sequences) is remarkably similar. We share 53% commonality with DNA of bananas but no serious person thinks we're descendants of a banana.... although, you might believe that!

I read the article you posted because I am always genuinely interested in the topic but what I am seeing is not anything conclusive. It's simply more theory. You cannot present theories as facts.

 

[Boss]

What ARE you saying?

For evolution to be true, all life must have an information molecule that is different from DNA?

That is crazy

Okay, it's more complicated than simply saying "evolution is true" or "evolution is not true."

I have said that MICRO-evolution (evoultion within a genus taxon) is true. We have substantial evidence for this and DNA even lends support to this theory. It's how we have black bears, polar bears and grizzly bears.

What is not supported with any finding is MACRO-evolution. That is the concept that every living thing has evolved from a universal common ancestor. IF this were true, DNA would be virtually the same in all living things. All living things have DNA but the DNA is unique. Each DNA has a specific combination of amino acids and proteins and these are not interchangeable. The DNA for humans has a completely different type of amino acids and proteins than the DNA of a chimpanzee, even though the structure of our DNA is remarkably similar.

To compound the problem, the amino acids and proteins seem to be unique to the DNA itself. It is as if the DNA is required to produce these amino acids and proteins which enable the DNA to exist. So how does the DNA exist to produce amino acids and proteins essential for the DNA to exist? We don't have an explanation.

Yes you are using the modern Intelligent Design argument with a bit of nonsense thrown in. Microevolution is true, but macroevolution is not to IDers. You all even invented the two terms. It was the modern faith argument when science had showed speciation to be a fact. The logic is same as the missing link which can always be argued to be true. If we find a missing link, you all declare we just created two new gaps, one on each side of the newly found missing link.

You really should not try using DNA as the difference, it just does not work for your argument. It works for ours!

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetings/baylor2009/papers/ASA2009Campbell.pdf

Your macroevolution mainly occurred in the past, especially the precambrian soup. Many Phyla experiments arose that later went extinct. That was in a constant opening of new environments. Once the planet got full, sea, river, air & land, your macroevolution becomes much harder. Life is finely tuned to its environment and natural selection works AGAINST such huge changes now.

No one invented terms. Micro and macro had definitions long before ID theory. Your assertions about macroevolution are more theories that you can't support with factual evidence or through observable testing and evaluation, and that's how science works. If it were possible for one genus to spawn a completely new and different genus, you'd be able to make that happen and you can't.

You are as guilty as RWS in your post of speaking in conclusive absolutes, as if your assorted theories and ideas have been conclusively proven to be true. It's a smugness I often encounter when arguing with people who think science is "on their side". I don't think science picks sides.

 

[Boss]

You have been mentioning many times about how the perfect ratio of forces in our universe allow our universe to exist, and is therefore a sign that "god" exists because of the precise nature of the ratios.

I have been trying to tell you that the ratio of forces in our universe is not perfect.

Our universe is expanding, which you agree with, and eventually that expansion is going to lead to the end of the universe.

So the ratio of forces is not perfect in this universe, as should be expected by a perfect "Creator" like you suggest.

And now you're changing your tune to save face because you realize I'm right. Go back and look at your posts, before this turns into another slapping battle.

You can't change your tune in the middle of a song.

I did not use the word "perfect" anywhere in my commentary. That is all you baby. I also didn't say "ratio of forces" ...not sure what that means. I said there are several immutable dimensionless physical constants that must be fine tuned as they are for a universe to exist and life to exist in it. I do not know what a "perfect" universe would be since I am a mortal human without the capability to know what perfection in a universe actually is.

I also didn't say "this is a sign god exists." I merely pointed out this is something physics hasn't explained and perhaps there is a spiritual explanation. Do you see a difference in what I say and what you are interpreting? Saying "this IS..." happens to be very different than suggesting a possibility of something.

From my perspective, there are no "slapping battles" between you and I. While you flail at me like a little girl, I beat you down like a pimp on his crack ho. It embarasses you, so you respond by being rude and holding a grudge.

You mean you think physical constants are special. I don't. Different constants would produce a possible different universe and if they produced one w/o us, we wouldn't care cuz we would not be here to wonder about it.

I believe life and us are a direct result of the chemistry of the periodic table.

A different constant for the force of gravity would result in no material universe. Differences in other constants would result in no carbon. A universe without carbon cannot support life. Even the periodic table relies on immutable dimensionless physical constants which are finely tuned.

Your disbelief in the constants being 'special' is akin to finding a radio set on a deserted island and surmising that it's nothing special, if it weren't there. we wouldn't be worried about where it came from. The fact is, the constants are there and we exist because they are there. And you have no physics explanation for why they are as they are.

 

[MarkDuffy]

What ARE you saying?

For evolution to be true, all life must have an information molecule that is different from DNA?

That is crazy

Okay, it's more complicated than simply saying "evolution is true" or "evolution is not true."

I have said that MICRO-evolution (evoultion within a genus taxon) is true. We have substantial evidence for this and DNA even lends support to this theory. It's how we have black bears, polar bears and grizzly bears.

What is not supported with any finding is MACRO-evolution. That is the concept that every living thing has evolved from a universal common ancestor. IF this were true, DNA would be virtually the same in all living things. All living things have DNA but the DNA is unique. Each DNA has a specific combination of amino acids and proteins and these are not interchangeable. The DNA for humans has a completely different type of amino acids and proteins than the DNA of a chimpanzee, even though the structure of our DNA is remarkably similar.

To compound the problem, the amino acids and proteins seem to be unique to the DNA itself. It is as if the DNA is required to produce these amino acids and proteins which enable the DNA to exist. So how does the DNA exist to produce amino acids and proteins essential for the DNA to exist? We don't have an explanation.

This is just dumb. The DNA for humans and other apes is biochemically the same. The DNA sequences differ by only a few percent. There is no problem there, only in your mind. Humans ARE apes.

Which came first, nucleic acids or proteins?

Ever heard of RNA, the primitive nucleic acid?

Humans are NOT apes

Uh, yes we most certainly are apes.

Family Hominidae ~ The Great Apes

The Hominidae (/hɒˈmɪnɪdiː/), whose members are known as great apes[note 1] or hominids, are a taxonomic family of primates that includes seven extant species in four genera: Pongo, the Bornean and Sumatran orangutan; Gorilla, the eastern and western gorilla; Pan, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo; and Homo, which includes modern Humans and its extinct relatives (e.g., the Neanderthal), and ancestors, such as Homo erectus.[1]

Hominidae - Wikipedia

If we were, we could breed with apes.

We are a different species. We breed with other apes, human apes. Now if you had said gorilla, chimp, orang, you would be correct. We are not them. Apes is a general category.

I realize that you resent being a member of the ape family. It is why I use one as my avatar.

This is my baby pic, my windows avatar

The biochemistry is NOT the same, if it were, there would be no reason for the RNA World theory your article is about.

You are confused. The biochemistry is exactly the same. The genetics are different. We are talking modern apes/humans, not primitive life with RNA.

I already said the DNA structure (sequences) is remarkably similar. We share 53% commonality with DNA of bananas but no serious person thinks we're descendants of a banana.... although, you might believe that!

LOL, why does that give you pause? There is a LOT of DNA that just gives rise to the basic biochemistry of the cell & multicellularity. This common DNA is further proof that all life is related.

I read the article you posted because I am always genuinely interested in the topic but what I am seeing is not anything conclusive. It's simply more theory. You cannot present theories as facts.

DNA was an improvement on RNA due to the double helix providing self repair of mutations. RNA has no way to fix itself since it is a single primitive strand. If one strand of DNA has an substitution error, the other strand is used as a template to fix the error.

https://www.quora.com/Why-was-DNA-chosen-to-be-the-genetic-material-instead-of-RNA

RNA world - Wikipedia