OK, so you don't really have an answer other than, "Well, it just happened." How is than any better than. "God did it?"
Of
course we do. We have extant examples of all the components. Every physical component I listed is common and easily found, and every chemical process is, not only common, but
inevitable, given the right chemical environment.
Wait? Are you a Darwinian evolution denier?
The DNA of a genome, whether you want to recognize it or not, is a code that even Bill Gates admits is emulated by a computer program.
This is a silly red herring.
Who cares what Gates thinks about DNA?
So what if computers emulate DNA? They emulate spaceships too. Because they're programmed to emulate.
There is no place in in your answer which explains how a self replication code is formed by any observed or known natural process.
Yes there is.
We have examples of that too.
The Krebs cycle is a self-replicating system that spontaneously occurs in the right conditions, often near ocean smoke plumes.
It is not life; it is way simpler than life. Yet it consumes atoms, creates copies of itself and excretes byproducts. The point is that there are plenty of precursors to self-replicating living systems.
Chemical cycles are common. Simple ones, complex ones too.
In order to evolve, you have to have something that exists to evolve from. You are picking up the story midstream without explaining what evolved.
You did not read what I wrote:
All of this, except the last step, is non-life, and not Darwinian evolution.
Sea of organics and hydrocarbons > Primordial soup > lipids form membranes > bubbles concentrating proto-nutrients > enzymes build proteins > proteins build RNA > earliest life
All of it is natural, deterministic chemistry.
Evolution merely means change but you have to have something to change before you can change it.
Asked and answered. See above.
Genomes are vastly complex systems. There is no such thing as a simple genome. Even the least complex genome is far more complex than the most complex creation of humanity.
Yes. No one disputes this. Why mention ity? You probably could have snipped this red herring out of the paragraph of whatever Creationist book you were quoting it from.
Perhaps it is you who needs to read some modern articles on this topic.
Evidence indicates that I have an idea what I am talking about. Evidence indicates that you are speeding through my words, and knee-jerk reacting to what you
think I am saying.
I invite you to re-read my words more carefully.
The idea of a random process that can connect usable amino acids into usable peptides and then usable peptides into poly-peptides iand using those to produce usable proteins leads to a mathematical calculation that iis far beyond the impossible range
Ah, the old stand-by of the Creationist "just a random process".
Chemistry is not random. Put H and O in a room together and eventually you will get water; Inevitably, and every single time. There's nothing random about it.
Put the right organic components in a tide pool and you will get membranes and lipids forming. Every time.
considering the time that has existed
How you do know this? Because it just feels unlikely to you? Argument by incredulity.
even if we place the age of the Universe at 13.8 billion years.
Wait. what do you mean "
even if"? Is it in doubt?
How long do
you think the universe has existed?
(By usable I am pointing out that there are many amino acids which do not appear in living cells plus many peptides and poly-peptides and proteins which are likewise not used by living cells.)
Yes. So what?
Plus you finally end up with the question of which came first -- the proteins of living cells or the DNA?
Considering
1. DNA
is a protein,
2. Proteins are formed from simpler building blocsk than DNA all the time,
I have to wonder why you are asking this question. Was it fed to you? Have you thought it through for yourself?
The only known source of proteins from which living cells are built is DNA.
This is a bait and switch. Just because current
living cells only use those proteins does not mean its the only way proteins were formed pre-life.
Your argument is analogous to this:
"The only way tall buildings are built today is with cranes. There were no cranes six thousand years ago, therefore the pyramids cannot have been built using cranes, and it follows that the pyramids can only have been built by divine fiat."
To make your argument, you had to completely ignore the
precursor tools that
led to the extant tools.
Proteins
do form from amino acids in protected environments (such as, say, membranous lipids) before DNA was formed.
These arguments seem pretty old - dead-horse-like and long debunked. It kind of feels like you have been fed them but have not really thought through the steps.
So where did we get the proteins before we had the DNA to build them?
From amino acids, of course. See your logical flaw, previous paragraph.
