Replies

Don't forget, those mutations had to occur within, lets
say, the first billion years or so..you can't use the
whole 4.5 billion years...so if you work it out at
1 division every 20 minutes (per cell), and count the
numbers of cells, and the successful mutation rate
(i.e. the one that doesn't get corrected by correction
enzymes....oh, by the way, where did THEY come from?),
factor in bio. death rates of cells, DE-EVOLUTION (i.e.
DNA/RNA can back mutate too, can't it?), weather,
ozone, cosmic rays, heat, oxidizing molecules, precipitation problems...that should give you some idea of
how many mutations, and how much time, and how much
circumstances are needed. Appealing to time (Newtonian,
I suppose in your model) is not always going to help.
Someone has said that given enough time, the most
likely thing is going to occur. That usually involves
entropy, and destruction of formed materials. Some people think that given enough time, the most unlikely thing will occur.
P.S. what was the food source of the original bacteria...
did they come with biochemical instructions on how to
synthesis food, and exchange electrons, like from
O2, or Sulfur, or arsenic? ,....etc????
Or did the ones which had those properties already find "themselves" successful???? Chicken or egg,
enzyme, or DNA?

well stated. the hype over "time" solves all of evolutions problems..can't hold water and junk science like this article are desperate attempts to explain away the impossible..would think hanging your hat on the old
over billions of years anything can happen..sounds more and more like roulette in Las Vegas. remember the rule of chance if I roll red 30x in a row the chance of hitting black on roll 31 is what? greater? lesser? the same?
yet the evolutionist think it will come up black time and time again until life emerges from the old primordial soup..well the soups cold and DNA becomes useless without the proper environment of multitudes of amino acids held within close proximity, with golgi app, mrna,trna, all appearing from the magical cold soup..what gamblers these evolutionist are.

Don't forget, those mutations had to occur within, lets say, the first billion years or so..you can't use the whole 4.5 billion years...

Are you sure? What do we need at 3.5 billion years ago for a genome? Source?

(i.e. the one that doesn't get corrected by correction enzymes....oh, by the way, where did THEY come from?)

Looks like an advantageous mutation to me. What were you going to suggest and what's the evidence for your idea?

DE-EVOLUTION

Change is change, although if you start as simple as you can get there's simply more room to experiment in the direction of increasing complexity.

P.S. what was the food source of the original bacteria...

If you've actually been following this stuff (BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!)...

Well, if you don't know what science even says on the subject, how do you know it's wrong?

But I digress. You have something called RNA World, a bigger-than-cellular system-as-organism. The first cellular animals form as parasites off of RNA-World. As RNA-World gets eaten up, two things are happening. Photosynthetic plants are evolving from animals, and animals are learning to eat plants and animals. You can Google, right?

Anyway, my comment to eddie2 would seem to apply to you. You don't rebut science by being dumb as a stump about what science is even saying.

If you don't know what it says, how do you know it's wrong?