>>So both the DNA and proteins must have been functional from the beginning in order for evolution to start, otherwise life could not exist because one can't exist without the other.
>
>I don't think that's necessarily true.

Ok. If this is possible, will some please do this in a laboratory?

>
>Replicators, molecules that can build replicas of themselves from materials in the environment, could be made much more primitavely than the scheme you described.

Knowing what is required for this to happen, it would take a miracle... much easier said then done....

>
>Once these primitave replicators exist, evolution starts, and DNA might show up later on.

Easier said then done.

>
>Here, I think, is the heart of the matter:
>
>Science is problem solving, nothing more and nothing less. If you have a problem, and you have possible answers, it is intellectually dishonest to reject all the answers. Just pick one. Look at the evidence, look at the strengths and weaknesses of the answers, and draw your conclusion.

I never said evolution is bad science. Nor did I ever said evolution was ASOLUTELY wrong. I just don't know if it's the only possibility. I think it has lot of good stuff in it. But I also think some critical portions of it requires too much assumptions and "Faith". Who knows, some day some brilliant scientist may connect all the dots and make it logical for me.

>Now, knowing that, I pose the problem to you: how did human beings come to exist on Earth?

>
>One answer is evolution: we evolved from simpler life forms.
>
>Another answer is creation: God did it.

Or combination of both...

>
>But what's important is what you currently accept. What is your answer and why?

I accept neither as THE truth, for they both have flaws....


Mike this has been really interesting and obviously you're a smart individual. But I think this thread has come to an end.

Thanks for your time.