No, lets not. I provided counter evidence to one absurd baseless assertion of yours , that "information" only comes from "minds", you have not provided any basis on which to defend your original position.

Actually, I did. I pointed out that your simulation doesn't do what you said it does, even in a trivial way. I said information only comes from minds, so you provide a simulation programmed by a mind. I stated this only illustrates my point, but you insisted the output proved information doesn't have to come from minds. I just got finished pointing out that the whole thing is analogous to randomly piecing together letters of an existing language until you get a new word by chance. You still need the language for the word to mean anything, otherwise it is just nonsense. And you don't get the word without the language in the first place. If the boxcar simulation could produce helicopters, that might be something, but you're still dealing with the chicken and the egg problem. A system created by information which outputs information by design is not doing so without the involvement of a mind. A mind was behind the entire process and none of it could have happened without a mind so it doesn't count as an example. You can't use a design to prove there is no design needed. That's like saying you can prove you don't need a factory to build a car but you buy all of your parts to build the car from the factory.

Your "this is going badly, let's start over" tactic is cute, don't get me wrong, but you insist that your ideological position be taken seriously, and I intend to do so, until it lies in tattered shreds on the floor.

What I insist is that you substantiate your claims, which you have failed to do. Your overconfidence is amusing, but misplaced; the facts are not on your side. Abiogenesis is purely metaphysics and unproven.

So you acknowledge that information is trivially synthesized, by
non-minds? That's the opposite of your original claim. Is that a
retraction?

No, see above.

So now you accept that once you have atoms, gravity, time,
electromagnetism, you inevitably have the possibility of self
replicating molecular systems, and therefor "life"?

Nope, see above.

You seem to have decided that life is a magical barrier, but this distinction is false.

There most certainly is a barrier. Again, abiogenesis is pure metaphysics; it doesn't happen in the real world. Life doesn't come from non-life. Pasteurization, and the food supply in general, relies upon this fact.

The distinction between "life" and "non-life" does not exist.

So there is no difference between you and a rock? I can admit I see similarities, heart wise..:)

Let's see some evidence for your claim that there is no difference between life and non-life.

You acknowledge that once a mechanism for inheritance exists the rest
is inevitable, I agree, you simply lack the sense of scale on which
the universe operates, which makes the preceding step entirely
plausible.

No, I admit that if you don't have to do the work to get wheels and bodies, and you have a design that churns them out, boxcars are inevitable. If you already have the materials, and the blueprints, of course you're able to build the house. Without any of those things, it is an impossible proposition.

This is simply false. RNA codes for proteins, but RNA requires no
proteins for it's own replication, it is entirely plausible, arguably
likely, that once you have RNA, DNA would get a chance to compete.

It's not false. This is your pathway to DNA: RNA - (MAGIC) - DNA This is your pathway to RNA: ROCKS - (MAGIC) - RNA Just because you can get RNA to self-replicate doesn't automatically mean it is either likely or plausible this could happen.

You assume that the argument is Random -> RNA -> DNA, but it is not. There are many simpler organic self replicators that, in the absence of an RNA ecosystem, would be able to prime the pump, by converting simple molecules into those more likely to contribute to spontaneous RNA synthesis, very much in the same way that cells work by creating conditions where the high concentration of particular ingredients allows proteins to replicate DNA, which proteins would not be able to do in the wild.

The best science has been able to do is create some amino acids which is worlds away from a complex molecule like RNA. The difficulties are legion and many are just intractable. There is no proof that RNA could even survive in that kind of environment, because it is extremely fragile.

ID is not even a postulation, much less a hypothesis, it provides no information, illuminates nothing, it is theology dressed up in the garb of science. It's only science if it reliably predicts things, ID fails at this basic task, because, like all theology, it is useless
.

It most certainly is a theory and it is not theology; intelligent design only needs an intelligent designer, not an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity. It is a theory which states that certain elements and features of the Universe are better explained by intelligent causation than an undirected process like natural selection. It is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent" design in nature, which biologists acknowledge, is actual design. It is only useless to you because you have ruled out design apriori, which is just simply ignorant.

>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Let's start over because you're just going all over the place

No, lets not. I provided counter evidence to one absurd baseless assertion of yours , that "information" only comes from "minds", you have not provided any basis on which to defend your original position.
Your "this is going badly, let's start over" tactic is cute, don't get me wrong, but you insist that your ideological position be taken seriously, and I intend to do so, until it lies in tattered shreds on the floor.
>> ^shinyblurry:
This is the point: Your entire example is irrelevent. Yeah, you can generate all sorts of stuff when a system is already in place, when you have a preprogrammed design that itself generates designs. If you already have wheels and a chassis, you can build a boxcar pretty easily. Boxcars are inevitable at this point.

So you acknowledge that information is trivially synthesized, by non-minds? That's the opposite of your original claim. Is that a retraction?
So now you accept that once you have atoms, gravity, time, electromagnetism, you inevitably have the possibility of self replicating molecular systems, and therefor "life"? You seem to have decided that life is a magical barrier, but this distinction is false. The distinction between "life" and "non-life" does not exist.
You acknowledge that once a mechanism for inheritance exists the rest is inevitable, I agree, you simply lack the sense of scale on which the universe operates, which makes the preceding step entirely plausible.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You have to have proteins to create DNA and you have to have DNA to create proteins.

This is simply false. RNA codes for proteins, but RNA requires no proteins for it's own replication, it is entirely plausible, arguably likely, that once you have RNA, DNA would get a chance to compete.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Science has attempted to solve this problem by saying that RNA molecules evolved from the soup, yet there is no logical pathway for this to happen, because natural selection and mutation cannot account for it.

You assume that the argument is Random -> RNA -> DNA, but it is not. There are many simpler organic self replicators that, in the absence of an RNA ecosystem, would be able to prime the pump, by converting simple molecules into those more likely to contribute to spontaneous RNA synthesis, very much in the same way that cells work by creating conditions where the high concentration of particular ingredients allows proteins to replicate DNA, which proteins would not be able to do in the wild.
>> ^shinyblurry:
The problems are far too vast to overcome, and experiment has yieled no conclusive results. So, my point stands, that intelligent design is a better explanation for the complex coded information in DNA, which naturalistic processes cannot account for.

ID is not even a postulation, much less a hypothesis, it provides no information, illuminates nothing, it is theology dressed up in the garb of science. It's only science if it reliably predicts things, ID fails at this basic task, because, like all theology, it is useless.

>> ^shinyblurry:
Let's start over because you're just going all over the place


No, lets not. I provided counter evidence to one absurd baseless assertion of yours , that "information" only comes from "minds", you have not provided any basis on which to defend your original position.

Your "this is going badly, let's start over" tactic is cute, don't get me wrong, but you insist that your ideological position be taken seriously, and I intend to do so, until it lies in tattered shreds on the floor.

>> ^shinyblurry:


This is the point: Your entire example is irrelevent. Yeah, you can generate all sorts of stuff when a system is already in place, when you have a preprogrammed design that itself generates designs. If you already have wheels and a chassis, you can build a boxcar pretty easily. Boxcars are inevitable at this point.


So you acknowledge that information is trivially synthesized, by non-minds? That's the opposite of your original claim. Is that a retraction?

So now you accept that once you have atoms, gravity, time, electromagnetism, you inevitably have the possibility of self replicating molecular systems, and therefor "life"? You seem to have decided that life is a magical barrier, but this distinction is false. The distinction between "life" and "non-life" does not exist.

You acknowledge that once a mechanism for inheritance exists the rest is inevitable, I agree, you simply lack the sense of scale on which the universe operates, which makes the preceding step entirely plausible.

>> ^shinyblurry:
You have to have proteins to create DNA and you have to have DNA to create proteins.


This is simply false. RNA codes for proteins, but RNA requires no proteins for it's own replication, it is entirely plausible, arguably likely, that once you have RNA, DNA would get a chance to compete.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Science has attempted to solve this problem by saying that RNA molecules evolved from the soup, yet there is no logical pathway for this to happen, because natural selection and mutation cannot account for it.


You assume that the argument is Random -> RNA -> DNA, but it is not. There are many simpler organic self replicators that, in the absence of an RNA ecosystem, would be able to prime the pump, by converting simple molecules into those more likely to contribute to spontaneous RNA synthesis, very much in the same way that cells work by creating conditions where the high concentration of particular ingredients allows proteins to replicate DNA, which proteins would not be able to do in the wild.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The problems are far too vast to overcome, and experiment has yieled no conclusive results. So, my point stands, that intelligent design is a better explanation for the complex coded information in DNA, which naturalistic processes cannot account for.


ID is not even a postulation, much less a hypothesis, it provides no information, illuminates nothing, it is theology dressed up in the garb of science. It's only science if it reliably predicts things, ID fails at this basic task, because, like all theology, it is useless.

Let's start over because you're just going all over the place

This is the point: Your entire example is irrelevent. Yeah, you can generate all sorts of stuff when a system is already in place, when you have a preprogrammed design that itself generates designs. If you already have wheels and a chassis, you can build a boxcar pretty easily. Boxcars are inevitable at this point. All these things are possible because the information is already present. You can invent new words because you already have a language. Likewise, if you already have DNA, you can certainly expect a cell to form. What you're still dealing with is the chicken and the egg problem. You have to have proteins to create DNA and you have to have DNA to create proteins. Science has attempted to solve this problem by saying that RNA molecules evolved from the soup, yet there is no logical pathway for this to happen, because natural selection and mutation cannot account for it. The problems are far too vast to overcome, and experiment has yieled no conclusive results. So, my point stands, that intelligent design is a better explanation for the complex coded information in DNA, which naturalistic processes cannot account for.

>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I haven't conflated anything. You've simply misconstrued everything I've said because of your belief that RNA is simple, or could spontaneously evolve.

Really? You thought that putting those two words together like that would convince me that you are taking anybody else seriously?
>> ^shinyblurry:
You think your simulation demonstrates the creation of information which could lead to a system that creates cellular life.

No, Please re-read your claim, and my response. You claimed that Information comes Only from minds, I provide counter evidence, you assert that I was claiming something else. I claim that you are not listening, you provide evidence.
>> ^shinyblurry:
such a system could never generate RNA of cellular life.

We have such a system, it's called the universe, and in it we find RNA. The universe does generate RNA, you and I are not in dispute on this point, only on the mechanism of that generation.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even if it could generate RNA, to evolve the correct sequences of RNA nucleotides to form even one protein would be impossible to achieve even over billions of years, let alone enough proteins to create a cell. Even if it could generate RNA, to evolve the correct sequences of RNA nucleotides to form even one protein would be impossible to achieve even over billions of years, let alone enough proteins to create a cell.

That claim makes no sense.
To assert that something takes a particular amount of time requires a context of how wide spread the attempt is.
As an example I can not build a rocket to put people on the moon, this is impossible, I will not live long enough... None the less a large number of people, working in concert, with worse technology that we have access to did accomplish this task, it's possibility is a matter of scale.
In order to make an anthropic argument, I only need life to have happened once in all the space and time of the entire universe. Now I realize that you are just talking out your ass, that you have no numbers to back up your claims of probability, that your are simply making an argument from incredulity, but if you decide to try and cover your ass with some numbers realize we have about 100B years and 10⁸⁰ atoms to work with.
>> ^shinyblurry:
There is no experiment which has demonstrated that RNA can spontaneously evolve and be capable of creating life, now or ever. There is also no experiment which shows life evolving from non-living matter.

There again with the nonsense phrase, trying to really hit it home that you really have no clue what you are arguing against?
RNA is a molecule, it's not magic, it does nothing but what chemistry would expect of it, and still, it generates information through mutation/selection. This is, again, evidence against your absurd initial position which your argument from incredulity can not address. Even if you question the source of the molecule, the mechanism is the same, RNA is not a god antenna, it's a molecule, that synthesizes information through a simple, well understood, physical process.
>> ^shinyblurry:
The information is what designed and built the simulation, and its structure generates different arrangements of that information based on certain preprogrammed variables which do not change. You are not making anything truly new, rather you are just shuffling things around.

And neither has anybody, and you never have, and I never will. We are all bounded by our universe, we can not create or destroy, only move and arrange. There is, as far as we can tell, never anything new, and to say that that is true of the simulation provides no information about how it may be different from the physical universe in which we live, it is only one more way in which it is similar.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Such a simulation could never evolve on its own outside of programming.

Do you not get the concept of simulation? Nobody has claimed that the simulation is "real" only that it mimics, in a predictive way, certain aspects of the physical universe. Specifically it illustrates the compounding result of mutation/combination/selection, which is to synthesize information about the environment in a manner coded to best deal with that environment, a process, which you assert can not happen.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Just as DNA could never evolve on its own. The digital information it contains transcends its medium, just as a story transcends the paper and ink it is written on. Information only comes from minds, and that is what DNA code points to.

Your comparison is poor, paper and ink don't create words, DNA does. Understanding the information may require a "mind", whatever that means, but the information effecting and shaped by the physical world only requires mutation/selection, and we had that on this planet for billions of years before anybody realized there was any information in the system at all.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I haven't conflated anything. You've simply misconstrued everything I've said because of your belief that RNA is simple, or could spontaneously evolve.


Really? You thought that putting those two words together like that would convince me that you are taking anybody else seriously?

>> ^shinyblurry:

You think your simulation demonstrates the creation of information which could lead to a system that creates cellular life.


No, Please re-read your claim, and my response. You claimed that Information comes Only from minds, I provide counter evidence, you assert that I was claiming something else. I claim that you are not listening, you provide evidence.

>> ^shinyblurry:

such a system could never generate RNA of cellular life.


We have such a system, it's called the universe, and in it we find RNA. The universe does generate RNA, you and I are not in dispute on this point, only on the mechanism of that generation.

>> ^shinyblurry:
Even if it could generate RNA, to evolve the correct sequences of RNA nucleotides to form even one protein would be impossible to achieve even over billions of years, let alone enough proteins to create a cell. Even if it could generate RNA, to evolve the correct sequences of RNA nucleotides to form even one protein would be impossible to achieve even over billions of years, let alone enough proteins to create a cell.


That claim makes no sense.

To assert that something takes a particular amount of time requires a context of how wide spread the attempt is.

As an example I can not build a rocket to put people on the moon, this is impossible, I will not live long enough... None the less a large number of people, working in concert, with worse technology that we have access to did accomplish this task, it's possibility is a matter of scale.

In order to make an anthropic argument, I only need life to have happened once in all the space and time of the entire universe. Now I realize that you are just talking out your ass, that you have no numbers to back up your claims of probability, that your are simply making an argument from incredulity, but if you decide to try and cover your ass with some numbers realize we have about 100B years and 10⁸⁰ atoms to work with.

>> ^shinyblurry:

There is no experiment which has demonstrated that RNA can spontaneously evolve and be capable of creating life, now or ever. There is also no experiment which shows life evolving from non-living matter.


There again with the nonsense phrase, trying to really hit it home that you really have no clue what you are arguing against?

RNA is a molecule, it's not magic, it does nothing but what chemistry would expect of it, and still, it generates information through mutation/selection. This is, again, evidence against your absurd initial position which your argument from incredulity can not address. Even if you question the source of the molecule, the mechanism is the same, RNA is not a god antenna, it's a molecule, that synthesizes information through a simple, well understood, physical process.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The information is what designed and built the simulation, and its structure generates different arrangements of that information based on certain preprogrammed variables which do not change. You are not making anything truly new, rather you are just shuffling things around.


And neither has anybody, and you never have, and I never will. We are all bounded by our universe, we can not create or destroy, only move and arrange. There is, as far as we can tell, never anything new, and to say that that is true of the simulation provides no information about how it may be different from the physical universe in which we live, it is only one more way in which it is similar.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Such a simulation could never evolve on its own outside of programming.


Do you not get the concept of simulation? Nobody has claimed that the simulation is "real" only that it mimics, in a predictive way, certain aspects of the physical universe. Specifically it illustrates the compounding result of mutation/combination/selection, which is to synthesize information about the environment in a manner coded to best deal with that environment, a process, which you assert can not happen.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Just as DNA could never evolve on its own. The digital information it contains transcends its medium, just as a story transcends the paper and ink it is written on. Information only comes from minds, and that is what DNA code points to.


Your comparison is poor, paper and ink don't create words, DNA does. Understanding the information may require a "mind", whatever that means, but the information effecting and shaped by the physical world only requires mutation/selection, and we had that on this planet for billions of years before anybody realized there was any information in the system at all.

I haven't conflated anything. You've simply misconstrued everything I've said because of your belief that RNA is simple, or could spontaneously evolve. You think your simulation demonstrates the creation of information which could lead to a system that creates cellular life. This is false; such a system could never generate RNA of cellular life. Even if it could generate RNA, to evolve the correct sequences of RNA nucleotides to form even one protein would be impossible to achieve even over billions of years, let alone enough proteins to create a cell. There is no experiment which has demonstrated that RNA can spontaneously evolve and be capable of creating life, now or ever. There is also no experiment which shows life evolving from non-living matter.

The information is what designed and built the simulation, and its structure generates different arrangements of that information based on certain preprogrammed variables which do not change. You are not making anything truly new, rather you are just shuffling things around. Such a simulation could never evolve on its own outside of programming. Just as DNA could never evolve on its own. The digital information it contains transcends its medium, just as a story transcends the paper and ink it is written on. Information only comes from minds, and that is what DNA code points to.

>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You're just illustrating my point. That program was designed and coded by a mind. It is the coded digital information which makes it possible.

So you are claiming that the designs are placed in the simulation by the programmer, that they are deceiving you when they claim that the car is designed by genetic selection?
There is information in the simulation, the information is in the physics and the randomly generated track, just as in our universe the physical constraints create conditions that privilege certain patterns in both chemistry and behavior. Since the only non-random input to the system is physics based on our own, are you claiming that physics is a "mind" ?
>> ^shinyblurry:
It is the same story for DNA, and there isn't any naturalistic explanation for where the digital information came from; rather we know that information comes from minds, just if we see a message written in the sand we know a mind was behind it.

Here you conflate the data with the structure, you miss the basic fact that there are many, not terribly complex, chemicals that self replicate. You seem to be unaware that RNA ( referenced in your little puff piece apologetics video) is both self sorting and self replicating, requiring effectively no external mechanism to enable the creation of a system which synthesis information in the same manner as the simulation I linked.
Again you refuse to have a serious conversation, as you will not even address my points, you claim things without evidence, and then "support" them with hyperbole. If you are not claiming that physics is a mind, then you have not even bothered to comprehend the most basic explanation of that you claim to be arguing against, you are instead arguing against your own fever dream strawman, and not addressing any of us at all.
If you intend to navel gaze, please use your navel, the internet consist mostly of real people, Poe's law suggests you may even be one of them, so please at least attempt to seriously interact with us.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You're just illustrating my point. That program was designed and coded by a mind. It is the coded digital information which makes it possible.


So you are claiming that the designs are placed in the simulation by the programmer, that they are deceiving you when they claim that the car is designed by genetic selection?

There is information in the simulation, the information is in the physics and the randomly generated track, just as in our universe the physical constraints create conditions that privilege certain patterns in both chemistry and behavior. Since the only non-random input to the system is physics based on our own, are you claiming that physics is a "mind" ?

>> ^shinyblurry:

It is the same story for DNA, and there isn't any naturalistic explanation for where the digital information came from; rather we know that information comes from minds, just if we see a message written in the sand we know a mind was behind it.


Here you conflate the data with the structure, you miss the basic fact that there are many, not terribly complex, chemicals that self replicate. You seem to be unaware that RNA ( referenced in your little puff piece apologetics video) is both self sorting and self replicating, requiring effectively no external mechanism to enable the creation of a system which synthesis information in the same manner as the simulation I linked.

Again you refuse to have a serious conversation, as you will not even address my points, you claim things without evidence, and then "support" them with hyperbole. If you are not claiming that physics is a mind, then you have not even bothered to comprehend the most basic explanation of that you claim to be arguing against, you are instead arguing against your own fever dream strawman, and not addressing any of us at all.

If you intend to navel gaze, please use your navel, the internet consist mostly of real people, Poe's law suggests you may even be one of them, so please at least attempt to seriously interact with us.

Heres my live-comment on the video

"New knowledge has shaken the foundations of Darwins theory"

No. In fact, everything in biology, especially the discovery of DNA in 1953 have confirmed, and established once and for all that the foundation of Darwins theory based on the Natural selection of hereditery properties (Darwin called them traits, we now call them genes) is true.

"When Darwin was alive, they thought the cell was a simple blob"

Wow, that was only like 3 seconds between lie #1 and lie #2! Impressive, Behe. Lets drag up Darwins corpse, and see what he had to say, even if its largely irrelevant to the fact of evolution and the practice of modern biology:
http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2007/07/16/darwin_and_the_cell_not_just_p/

"Like a car factory where everything has to fit together"


Not really, cells are messy things, and the processes inside is based on chemical reactions and physical laws (such as entropy) They look nothing like these tidy animations meant for illustration purposes. The production of proteins, for instance,is a process where the amino acids float around and bind themselves chemically to rna, not in an orderly "wait my turn"-style, but they latch on naturally to the RNA because they are chemically attracted to the 5 different nucleic acids on the RNA chain. It would be more similar to a redox reaction you can do with electrodes in water where the iron rod attracts the oxygen molecules, forming rust.(in the sense that theres nothing intelligent going on, just chemistry.)

"Darwinism was a lot more plausible when we thought the cell was a blob"

No.

"Flagellum"

A , Behes flagship of his idiot argument, he always pulls it out, all debunking be damned, he cant even hear how people have destroyed this silliness over and over:

http://youtu.be/a_5FToP_mMY

Utter bullshit.

I got about 3 minutes in before I had to start typing to respond to this nonsense.

He says, "no one has ever seen or been able to demonstrate an actual increase of information in the genome" and goes on to state that there is no evidence for the genetic code ever gaining information.

The opposite is well demonstrated in retroviruses which integrate their RNA into our DNA becoming a provirus. "It is thought that provirus may account for approximately 8% of the human genome in the form of inherited endogenous retroviruses." 8% of the genome is a HUGE amount - the difference in DNA between humans and chimps is about 1.6% or between 48 and 80 million nucleotides.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'RNA, DNA, copy, pbs, double, helix, synthesis' to 'RNA, DNA, copy, pbs, double helix, synthesis' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'dna, copy, pbs, double, helix' to 'RNA, DNA, copy, pbs, double, helix, synthesis' - edited by mauz15

^ People can already change most of their visual characteristics, yet there isn't a huge movement to ban plastic surgery or hair dye. Would you be against fixing any genetically-caused deformities with these methods? If my kid were going to be born without a nose then I'd sure as hell fix that if I had the ability.

... and what is wrong with getting rid of disease? We've been trying to do that for pretty much all of human history. I welcome the day we have the ability.


Performance is a different issue admittedly, but I still don't have a problem with it. If a kid is going to be born with, for instance, an IQ of 50 then most people would support fixing that severe disability at the genetic level before it becomes a problem (assuming it is both possible and safe at the time). That way the kid gets to grow up without needing special assistance all of his life. I would love to live in a world where there is no longer a need for "special education" classes.

The interesting part of this is what happens if that kid ends up with an IQ closer to 150 (for example). Is that a bad thing? Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I'd rather have him at 150 than 50, and I think society would benefit from it as well.

Then you run into the question of the point at which you let people be more intelligent. Either you don't use the procedure to fix anyone (unethical imo) or you let anyone destined for a sub-150 IQ have the procedure. The side effect is that you would have a lot of fairly intelligent people in the world. That sounds pretty damn good to me.


You also have to understand that this technology is not limited to unborn children. RNA interference (among other methods) are progressing just as quickly at let anyone control their own genetics. It isn't like smarter kids would force older people into obsolescence since the older people would have access to the same results.


The overriding point of this issue though is the fact that no one can stop it. Drugs are popular and prohibition for them is a joke even though they are considered "harmful". Genetic control will be extremely popular and generally seen as helpful (outside of the superstitious). A few countries might outlaw it, but all they will do is put their own citizens at a disadvantage against countries that allow it.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'science educational' to 'DNA, RNA, coiling, replication, transcription, translation, genetics' - edited by mauz15

Don't forget RNA has Uracil; A, G, T, C, and U!

... @ MINK, evolution doesn't attempt to explain creation, except in extrapolation of the process down through ancient bacteria. Formation and self replication of RNA-like structures and all of that is theory because nobody has done it from what is 'agreed' by consensus to be similar conditions to the origin of life on Earth yet. So what I'm saying is the space for God to exist in creation is still there, but its getting to be pretty tenuous.

It is a matter of courtesy here on the sift, now that we have the deadpool......I have had some righteous reminders, w/ or w/o a replacement suggested, matters not to me....I like it when folks are polite-makes it so much better for the times I am not....makes it better when RNA time comes......
*rip new asshole

But seriously, the real issue here is, Do we really need more than 1 Ronnie James Dio viddy???
"
Hide in the midnight turn out the lights you'll see them anyway
Sail into never they'll follow wherever you can go and take you to the places you don't know no no
It's the call of the city the way that black's pretty to the purest heart"
-from Dio's Evil Eyes

I mean, come on man, that shit blows some serious Spinal Tap chunks!!!!