Evidence for God from Science

Following interesting article appeared in scientific newspaper:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 143117.htm

How did the RNA world come into existence?

This pre-RNA world hypothesis has been gaining ground, largely through investigations into XNAs, which provide plausible alternatives to the current biological regime and could have acted as chemical stepping-stones to the eventual emergence of life. The current research strengthens the case that something like this may have taken place.

Comments? Thoughts? ( ... are appreciated )

This is pretty cool stuff. Could very well solve or push forward research toward solving a big question of early life on Earth. In particular, the argument about life having to arise using complex RNA/DNA sequences could be nullified altogether, because as this research seems to show, it is possible to have simpler information-holding material and it is possible for those simpler molecules to eventually evolve into those more complex forms.

In a purely material world, one must honestly say, "Something like this HAD TO happen."

The article is fundementally flawed, IMO, with Darwinian presuppositions. The first paragraph sets the stage.

Living systems owe their existence to a pair of information-carrying molecules: DNA and RNA. These fundamental chemical forms possess two features essential for life: they display heredity -- meaning they can encode and pass on genetic information, and they can adapt over time, through processes of Darwinian evolution.

What do they mean by adapt over time? What they mean is that molecules to man is a fact, and we don't need evidence, just belief to back it up. That is religous ideology.

They take an experiement based in genetic manipulation (engineering that requires an intelligent mind) and impose that on to a hypothesis. In other words, they start with a belief and work backwards from there. "See, it could be plausible!!! How exciting!!" Not sure that actually holds up scientifically.

It's not the end of the research, clearly, but before anyone would give you millions of dollars to work out whether it could have arisen naturally, someone needs to demonstrate that the molecules and the biology actually do function in real life (not just in theory), in addition to figuring out that these pre-RNA molecules could seamlessly transition into modern RNA systems through selection. I don't think anyone is presuming that this proves the hypothesis, it just shows that their hypothesis has theoretical merit and deserves further research.

it just shows that their hypothesis has theoretical merit and deserves further research.

Further $$$$$$$

Ivellious wrote:It's not the end of the research, clearly, but before anyone would give you millions of dollars to work out whether it could have arisen naturally, someone needs to demonstrate that the molecules and the biology actually do function in real life (not just in theory), in addition to figuring out that these pre-RNA molecules could seamlessly transition into modern RNA systems through selection. I don't think anyone is presuming that this proves the hypothesis, it just shows that their hypothesis has theoretical merit and deserves further research.

Through selection? Selection of or for what?

The entire concept of simpler and simpler forms is "entirely" a construct of imagination. There is positively and absolutely no physical evidence from the geological record which shows anything simpler than complete forms. In order to have any traction a hypothesis should have some definable evidence to support its consideration.
Consider further, what evidence do we possess that would lead us to believe that even if the chemicals existed to allow for the opportunity of time and chance to assemble them into life that it actually could?
Two very important missing evidences that are foundationally important to even allow for its possibility.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..."
It doesn't say exactly how this was accomplished. Really, what's the fuss?