[pepsi_junkie]

"It's pretty clear that there was a time when life was based on RNA," says Joyce, "not just because it's feasible that RNA can be a gene and an enzyme and can evolve, but because we really think it happened historically."

Good science here. It is obvious it happened this way because we actually beleive it did. We dont have evidence or anything but it could have happened and we think it did, so there you go.

[metacognative]

I thought science was based on hard skeptical evidence gathering, not wishful thinking and leaps of faith. What
are these darwinites really up to?

[jlogajan]

Good science here. It is obvious it happened this way because we actually beleive it did. We dont have evidence or anything but it could have happened and we think it did, so there you go.

It is good science. They are taking well educated hunches and trying them out in the lab. Contrary to popular opinion, science is a SEARCH for truth. You start searches looking in what you think is the most likely place. Sometimes that first guess is right, sometimes it is close. Sometimes it is way off. But you only find that out by TAKING THE FIRST STEPS.

Crick's 40 year old hunch turns out to have chemical viability.

The creationists have always asserted the strawman that life had to assemble spontaneously from raw elements to a living cell with full DNA -- all in one instant. This is, of course, ludicrous. What real scientists are doing is establishing pathways from which simple chemicals may have naturally led to more and more complex systems until you had some sort of ability to cause duplications of chemical chains.

As these possible structures are proven to work, the creationists strawman gets more laughable by the minute.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

"It's pretty clear that there was a time when life was based on RNA," says Joyce, "not just because it's feasible that RNA can be a gene and an enzyme and can evolve, but because we really think it happened historically."

Like HIV.