billys
An authoritative study concluded that the early biosphere contained oxygen before the earliest fossils (bacteria) formed. Iron oxides were found that “imply a source of oxygen enough to convert into insoluble ferric material the ferrous solutions that must have first formed the flat, continuous horizontal layers that can in some sites be traced over hundreds of kilometers.” Philip Morrison, “Earth’s Earliest Biosphere,” Scientific American, Vol. 250, April 1984, pp. 30–31.
Since 1930, it has been known that amino acids cannot link together if oxygen is present. Proteins could not have evolved from chance chemical reactions if the atmosphere contained oxygen. Proteins break down into amino acids but the reverse has never been observed in the natural order or simulated in the lab. However, the chemistry of the earth’s rocks, both on land and below ancient seas, shows that the earth had oxygen before the earliest fossils formed. This information can be verified from probably a thousand web sites, if you know how to use the web.
Creation of simple amino acids appears to be relatively simple in a reducing atmosphere (no oxygen). But the geologic record shows iron oxide in rock dated to 4 billion years ago. The bulk of evidence today says there was oxygen in the earth’s atmosphere before life began.
And if there were no oxygen in the pre-biotic atmosphere there is no ozone and no way to filter out UV rays. As you may or may not be aware, UV radiation is fatal to ALL life at sufficient levels.
Oxygen present: no amino acids
No oxygen: no ozone and no life cuz of those nasty UV rays
“I already explained it to you; If you don't "get it" than that's not my problem.” I’m sorry but I’m just a hick from the sticks. So far you have presented incorrect information about nucleotides but haven’t presented any specific mechanism for 6 billion complex chemicals to arrange themselves in precise order in the precise location.
Billy, try to answer my question straight up with no gobbledygook. I know you Darwinistas have been programmed to spout the MacroE line straight out of the book, with no thought to the meaning of the concepts. I know you are brainwashed into never questioning the absolute truth of MacroE. But try to focus here. Try thinking for yourself. You might find it refreshing and cleansing for your brain.
Specifically, HOW DID 6 BILLION COMPLEX CHEMICALS LINE THEMSELVES UP IN A HIGHLY EXACT SEQUENCE AND PRECISE LOCATION?
The possible combinations of nucleotides on the DNA molecule is 4 to the 6 billionth power. So how, specifically, did MacroE get them all right? I say it is so unlikely as to be laughable that unfocused and random forces of evolutionary theory could ever put the human DNA molecule together. So prove me wrong. Tell me specifically, how MacroE pulled this off.
Natural Selection is a demonstrable fact. MacroE has never been observed in the natural order and has never been simulated in the lab. Natural Selection is an accepted fact. MacroE is a hypothesis that is under attack from several scientific disciplines and the holes in the this hypothesis are becoming more apparent every day.
Prove me wrong, billy. Just tell us specifically and not generally. Don't insult the readers of HOP with theories. Give us the specifc facts. That is, if you can.
