31 Oct 13
Originally posted by RJHindsWell, you said it yourself. Evilution is an oxymoron. That exact word. Since you did not even invent that word, you are plagiarizing the whole thing and you didn't even give the real authors name who first came up with it.
Evilution Science is the real oxymoron.
The Instructor
The word Evolution is not an oxymoron, just Evilution.
So why don't you tell us your source for that word?
Originally posted by sonhouseI did. It comes from this video.
Well, you said it yourself. Evilution is an oxymoron. That exact word. Since you did not even invent that word, you are plagiarizing the whole thing and you didn't even give the real authors name who first came up with it.
The word Evolution is not an oxymoron, just Evilution.
So why don't you tell us your source for that word?
EVIL-LUTION - How Embarrassing!
The Instructor
04 Nov 13
Originally posted by KewpieHow nice.
Well, you would, wouldn't you? Just don't expect any person interested in real science to join you. In this forum you're a moronic waste of space, only tolerated because of the "free speech" thingy and not because of anything inside your delusion-filled head.
The Instructor
05 Nov 13
Originally posted by Kewpie"Free speech " thingy? Your not against free speech are you?
Well, you would, wouldn't you? Just don't expect any person interested in real science to join you. In this forum you're a moronic waste of space, only tolerated because of the "free speech" thingy and not because of anything inside your delusion-filled head.
05 Nov 13
2 edits
Originally posted by joe beyserWe are not against freedom of speak but do you support 'freedom of speak' SPECIFICALLY for a troll to do his trolling? -I certainly don't think this troll can really hide behind that to do all his moronic trolling.
"Free speech " thingy? Your not against free speech are you?
How about the 'freedom of speak' SPECIFICALLY for a racist to shout out offensive racist crap to any black people he hates? -if you don't support that, then why would you support this trolling? -I fail to see a lot of difference between the two.
Fortunately, I cannot see his trolling any more because I have used BG script to block his VAST LOAD OF CRAP and am a lot happier now for it but, it is not fair that all other uses here be forced to do the same to avoid seeing all his crap and far better and fairer to permanently ban the troll from this forum.
06 Nov 13
5 edits
Evidence supporting the hypothesis that RNA came before proteins and before DNA:
http://phys.org/news/2013-11-rna-splicing-gene-evidence-world.html
this is not by far the only evidence for the hypothesis and, although the possibility of proteins coming before RNA hasn't yet been ruled out, the case for RNA before proteins is pretty strong while RNA coming before DNA is, of course, definite.
07 Nov 13
Originally posted by humyThis RNA hypothesis is stupid bunk.
Evidence supporting the hypothesis that RNA came before proteins and before DNA:
http://phys.org/news/2013-11-rna-splicing-gene-evidence-world.html
this is not by far the only evidence for the hypothesis and, although the possibility of proteins coming before RNA hasn't yet been ruled out, the case for RNA before proteins is pretty strong while RNA coming before DNA is, of course, definite.
The Instructor
07 Nov 13
Originally posted by humyIs it energetically easier to make RNA than proteins?
Evidence supporting the hypothesis that RNA came before proteins and before DNA:
http://phys.org/news/2013-11-rna-splicing-gene-evidence-world.html
this is not by far the only evidence for the hypothesis and, although the possibility of proteins coming before RNA hasn't yet been ruled out, the case for RNA before proteins is pretty strong while RNA coming before DNA is, of course, definite.
07 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseNot sure but; for the very first protocell to be viable, an RNA-like molecule rather than proteins must have been used first and that's because, as far as we know, protein's cannot so easily readily and spontaneously function as carrier of genetic information (although I think it is theoretically possible for them to do so ) .
Is it energetically easier to make RNA than proteins?
I think RNA, or, much more likely, an RNA-like molecule, was likely to be in the very first truly viable protocell that could divide and grow and have what I would refer to 'stable inheritance' (which I define as the tendency to copy its whole genome accurately without mutation for more than half of the cell divisions ) that then allowed evolution. complex protein would then have come later because the RNA-like molecules would have had some functional enzyme-like activity thus temporally functioned both as both enzymes and generic material at the same time -or at least that is my (and some other peoples ) best theory.