>>>>>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.

There's a communication break down here, I think.

You said: So both the DNA and proteins must have been functional from the beginning in order for evolution to start.

This is what I don't think is true. I think DNA/RNA is product of evolution, not a starting point. The DNA, and sexual replication in general, is merely a strategy at replicating, and a pretty damned good one for practical and theoretical reasons. I think that replicators could be built much more primitavely than this scheme. You ask "how?"

You might take this as brushing off the question, but think of a computer virus. It replicates, but without the DNA/RNA bio-chemistry scheme you described. I don't know how the first replicators would have worked... hell, from time to time I wonder if they landed on Earth as aliens! The point is this area is what is open to exploration by scientists and theorists. Exploration of ideas is what science, or being a live, thinking being, is all about.

And, for what its worth, I've been excessively condescending towards you, so I should apoligize before you do! Sorry.

>>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.

Good luck.

>>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.

Ok, good to know. That hasn't been clear to me from our discussion so far.

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

But compared to the broad general answers coming from religion, surely you see more specific answers at least attempted in science?