smallest genome of any lifeform has 160,000 lines of code!

The idea that something comes from nothing is retarded. Modern science operates on "shit happens" principles, which is preposterous.

a single sell is more advanced than our boy Darwin ever knew - and the sad reality for the godless priests of science is that there is a grand designer. God.

[link to www.historicmysteries.com (secure)]

err yea, and the universe was created in a big bang and just randomly unraveled into something that can support stars planets and carbon based life.

I was taught in biology that life was formed from lightning striking pools of water containing amino acids but yet noone has ever recreated this "proof"

[link to www.livescience.com (secure)]


So we know all life has in common a DNA code! But there is no explanation of how this originated and it cannot be reproduced in a lab.
So the simplest life currently known has 160k base pairs of DNA but where did this come from?

While Darwin may be correct about evolution that does not explain the start or the design!

That’s not what I said

But way to totally ignore something that directly proves what you said wrong

Clearly you don’t want a discussion on facts and would rather be emotional
Enjoy!

I was taught that in high school biology. It’s about the time I became suicidal and stopped thinking life or relationships had any meaning.

yes it's true, it is a demoralizing philosophy to teach kids that , why would you let strangers teach your kids such evil lies? the parents must be incredibly stupid ,they are so stupid they believe they are soulless protein blobs, maybe they are.

the people who enslaved you know what life is, they know what magic is.

1 - Its not "lines of code", just RNA paired. This is important to mention to avoid a common misconception that people have, confounding it with computer code. It just isn't the same thing. It can from some perspectives be analogous but definitely not the same thing.
2 - Darwin was right. Species do evolve, this is the theory of evolution by natural selection. It has no role with abiogenesis(what you know as "where live came from").
3 - Abiogenesis is still a matter under study, and no, there's not a definitive answer for that. One of the hypothesis is the one you (kinda wrongly) quoted. It MAY have started like you've been "taught"(in quotes because it seems like you didn't quite understood it).

Whomever came up with the term "code" referring DNA/RNA should be hanged. They did a disservice to science and open the doors to an avalanche of conspiracy theorists/pseudoscience garbage.

The first life was probably Ribonucleic Acid, the RNA molecule.

RNA could have formed by amimno acids natuarlly attaching, and lining, up on a kaolinate clay surface. Such a clay forms everywhere there is moisture and igneuos rock.

Once in place and linked together, RNA could have been flushed free into the ocean by tidal and river flood waters.

After the formation of the Earth, such a process could have taken place trillions of trillions of times in just a few million years.

Eventually one molecule could occur with the capacity to grow by chemically attaching free amino acids to itself, and to reproduce by continuing to grow after being mechanically broken into pieces by the turbulence of breaking waves.

Then, for example, one of those molecules could have occurred with a slightly improved way to chemically attach with free amino acids than it's sisters.

That's evolution.

Life is easy to start. It's reaching the complexity of multicellular organisms that's hard. That takes a stable planet that retains standard temperature and pressure for four billion years. Our Earth is very rare.

Ska is a biological super computer and a super data storage

Ska is a biological super computer and a super data storage

So we are computers

Intelligent design followed by evolution is a competing theory

As opposed to

Abiogenesis followed by evolution

We don't know which is right

To propose an "intelligent design", one first must present evidence for a designer. What you're proposing is nothing but creationism(magic) in a lab coat. Its not a "competing theory", simply an attempt by fanatics to sneak god and magic into science.

[link to www.livescience.com (secure)]


So we know all life has in common a DNA code! But there is no explanation of how this originated and it cannot be reproduced in a lab.
So the simplest life currently known has 160k base pairs of DNA but where did this come from?

While Darwin may be correct about evolution that does not explain the start or the design!

Not trus

It's as sensible as proposing abiogenesis without proving or showing an example of that

Perhaps some form of life we are not even aware of came to exist by a process of which we are not aware and created primordial cells

Or perhaps a God

Those are both theories which are subject to possible falsification

Not trus

It's as sensible as proposing abiogenesis without proving or showing an example of that

Perhaps some form of life we are not even aware of came to exist by a process of which we are not aware and created primordial cells

Or perhaps a God

Those are both theories which are subject to possible falsification

As mentioned, abigenesis is still under study and there is no definitive answer. However, in order to propose "god", evidence for a god must be presented. The "lightning into aminoacids pool", is something that we know are all existing, which is not the case for a god.

Panspermia(life came to earth by some foreign celestial body or fragment) is also one hypothesis that would explain life on earth, but not the beginning of life.

We don't rule out until explanations are exhausted, we rule in as hypothesis that which is existing.

"Perhaps an unknown process", is a valid hypothesis.
"Perhaps god" is not.