>>>>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?
>
>You realize that the experiment would last for several million years? If not considerably longer.

To put a naked RND and see if replicates by it self without the help of a catalyst? Come on, we must have some naked RNA/DNA floating around some where by now.
Put some electric charge to it (isn't that all we need? You did say that... I thought) and BOOM is should happen.

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

Ok. how?

What I described is the minimum required in order for RNA/DNA to function properly. I don't want to sound condesending, but read your biochemistry book.

>>
>>Knowing what is required for this to happen, it would take a miracle... much easier said then done....
>
>If you played the lottery every day of your life, you probably wouldn't win.
>
>If your life was five million years long, you probably would win.
>
>I find it hard to believe that probability is looked upon by a thinking computer programmer as a miracle.

I don't get this... but... I guess that's why I'll be attanded Dental school next fall.

>
>Seriouslly. That worries me.

Don't let it. It's just a conversation.

>
>>>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.
>>>You don't need to believe it is true, you don't need to assume there are no flaws with the answer, and you don't need to assume that tomarrow you'll even accept the same answer because a better one might come along.
>
>
>>I accept neither as THE truth, for they both have flaws....
>
>Did you completely ignore what I said above? I said, fairly clearly "you don't need to believe it is true, you don't need to assume there are no flaws with the answer."

Ok. I do. I don't reject all the answers, but have questions on ones I believe is not correct.


>
>You tentatively accept answers for the sole purpose of exploring their consequences.
>
>In that context, why do you squirm away from all answers? Are you afraid God will smite you down? Are you afraid of using your own reasoning to make a subjective decision on which sounds better to you?

Who's "squriming"? I accept all that evolution has to offer. But again there are parts of it that needs more detail explaination.

Seems to me all I get is very broad general answers. That's fine, evolution is a tough subject to talk about.

You make it sound like all you need to do is put some nonliving elements in a pot let it sit for a while and next thing you know you get bio-molecules that can generate complex life (yes, even a simple single cell organism is very complex). Is it too much to ask for a little more detail before I'm convinced?