You may ask "Which Universe Am I In?"

No. I have absolutely no idea what theory could be better. But there are a few much worse theories.
Like I said read the book, it covers a lot including the nature of information and the huge/rapid appearance of information during the Cambrian explosion. I honestly can't understand the reticence from evolution devotees to read what skeptics have to say, it seems to me that people claim to be "scientists" yet at the same time do not have open minds, this has always struck me as self-contradictory.

Any person who fears that his beliefs are being challenged should revel in that, not become bitter and dogmatic and intolerant, a closed mind is a mind that's stopped learning.
 
Like I said read the book, it covers a lot including the nature of information and the huge/rapid appearance of information during the Cambrian explosion. I honestly can't understand the reticence from evolution devotees to read what skeptics have to say, it seems to me that people claim to be "scientists" yet at the same time do not have open minds, this has always struck me as self-contradictory.

Any person who fears that his beliefs are being challenged should revel in that, not become bitter and dogmatic and intolerant, a closed mind is a mind that's stopped learning.
Meyer's sequel explains where he was heading.

Expanding on the compelling case he presented in his last book, Signature in the Cell, Meyer argues that the origin of this information, as well as other mysterious features of the Cambrian event, are best explained by intelligent design, rather than purely undirected evolutionary processes.

So there you have it. God of the gaps.
 
Meyer's sequel explains where he was heading.

Expanding on the compelling case he presented in his last book, Signature in the Cell, Meyer argues that the origin of this information, as well as other mysterious features of the Cambrian event, are best explained by intelligent design, rather than purely undirected evolutionary processes.

So there you have it. God of the gaps.
If you seek reasons to avoid having an open mind then you'll find many, there are many ways out, I used to be an evolution devotee and used to dismantle creationists like Bruce Lee dismantled villains, I know how atheists think, I understand them better than they understand themselves.

I understand how hard it can be, but let it go, stop insisting that reality has to fit your belief system, instead alter the belief system to fit reality, there's a wonderful world out there, don't miss the wood for the trees.
 



 
If you seek reasons to avoid having an open mind then you'll find many, there are many ways out, I used to be an evolution devotee and used to dismantle creationists like Bruce Lee dismantled villains, I know how atheists think, I understand them better than they understand themselves.

I understand how hard it can be, but let it go, stop insisting that reality has to fit your belief system, instead alter the belief system to fit reality, there's a wonderful world out there, don't miss the wood for the trees.
A sermon. Superbly sarcastic.
 
No. I have absolutely no idea what theory could be better. But there are a few much worse theories.
One of the first evolutionary "catastrophes" in the Rene Thom sense) occurred when tRNA acquired hairpins.

1725316408661.png


You see where the codon is, it's the part in red.

This molecule began as a linear sequence, then folded once, then folded multiple times. Each folding event can be traced in single celled genomes. The particular folding we see now, enables the tRNA to interact with ribosomes.

The idea is, reactions occur when they're energetically favorable. "Any" reaction that's energetically favorable will occur eventually. Molecules of this length can be synthesized abiotically, on clay mineral surfaces, manganates and hydroxides. Adsorption on mineral surfaces lowers the activation energy and also serves as a scaffold for folding
 

Forum List

Back
Top