Some On Please Explain To Me Amino Acids To Rna Sequence For Me In The Origion Of Life.

[Kaiser01]

so i was reading a book at church (that i found) and it was called "Darwin on Trial". i know most creationist arguments are bunk and i have spent a great deal of time learning how to counter them if the need arised but one still bothers me.

 

i understand that amino acids have been formed in the labratory with the Miller experiment and i understand we can create RNA and allow it to evolve on its own becuase it is its own catalyst. but the book said that scientist have never been able to get amino acids to RNA.

 

my take on it is it takes millions of years for the amino acids to form into RNA with the spure of geologic activity(any kind of movment or activity). now i dont know if im missing somthing here but i would really like to know.

 

i strongly belive in the therory fact of evolution and i know not all the puzzel peices have been found but this "problem' if it is a problem since you know how creationist are when it comes to science, if it is currently solved.

 

most apreciated.

[Ouroboros]

It's correct. Not all steps in generating an artificial RNA has been done yet. But they're much further ahead now than when that book was written. Several nucleotides for the RNA have been regenerated in lab: http://www.wired.com...ibonucleotides/ I think Sutherland only replicated two of the nucleotides. Two more has to be done. Then you have the RNA pieces.

 

Put it this way, amino acids are the building blocks (or precursors) of nucleotides, and nucleotides are building blocks of RNA. The Miller-Uray experiment only produced amino acids. Sutherland produced nucleotides.

 

In the body, the liver produces the nucleotides (if I understand it right) and the cells pick them up for the DNA replication. So to create RNA, they only need to reproduce how the nucleotides came about.

[Kaiser01]

so basicaly the creationist are just once agian just expresing their ignorance?

[Ouroboros]

so basicaly the creationist are just once agian just expresing their ignorance?

I think in this case it's just that the book is outdated. The new experiment is fairly recent, and I suspect that book was written before. So, yeah, it's argument from ignorance in the form of "we don't know yet (when the book was written) therefore..."