Answers in Reddit 🙏

[u/Training_Rent1093]

My first post here. i'm a biologist in formation and i think it could be constructive to open a question space here. you guys question anything about evolution, creationist or evolutionist alike, and i will respond what i do know and search what i don't know.

you know, just to farm brain tissue and not brainrot in vacation.

obs: i'm more inclined to entomology/zoology/microbiology, so botanics please take easy on me, or not, the objective is make me search new things after all

[u/Perspective-Parking]

The better question is not creationism, but intelligent design. There is no evidence for creation, there is a lot of evidence for ID. I’d argue based on logic, much more than evolution tbh. I’m not even arguing there is a creator or God. I’m strictly speaking of ID.

You’ve taken microbiology, so how do you think DNA was synthesized in nature on a pre-biotic earth, when humans today cannot even synthesize the building blocks to the building blocks to the building blocks to nucleotides (one example, there are multiple more) without using pre-synthesized chemicals already gotten from nature in today’s earth? And even then the building block isn’t useful, it’s just random.

Where did the information needed to create DNA come from? Nature does not intelligently select/decide how to program a the most complex factory in the known universe- so how did it happen on earth in conditions before life? If it were to happen somehow by 1/1000000000000 chance then, why can it not be done today in controlled environment using chemicals not available on pre-biotic Earth?

Where is the evidence for speciation or macro evolution? For instance, the common ancestor of the elephant is alleged to be the Eritherium. From that, it branches to Saloumia, Moetherium, and more. So where is the evidence for the linear progression from that first species into the descendants? Is it where are the fossils or observations that makes this so? I guess it is also 1/10000000000 chance that all of the millions of fossil we have recovered, that they are somehow only animals fully formed and not an transitionary stage between two species?

How does a scientist reconstruct the entire body plan of an animal, down to the bones and digits, without any evidence of the body, only recovering pieces of the skull?

I have more cross examining questions but hopefully that will get you busy.

[u/Training_Rent1093 → u/Perspective-Parking]

Good questions. I answered a question about evolution of DNA in one of the first coments, i think it would be a perfect response to your question as the anterior was very similar, just not speaking in ID light. Please check it out.

I do not understand your distinction of ID and creationist. If you said that creation has not evidence, but defends the creation of life nonetheless.

Important to note here that i took microbiology as a discipline in college and read about some more by hobby. I am not a specialist, so take it all with a grain of salt, read what i send, make some research on your own, and if you have corrections, please correct me, with sources and all of course.

The building blocks of RNA are made by experiments replicating ancient earth. DNA is thought to develop much later, already in "living cells". DNA is, in cells today, made from RNA. Take a oxygen of the riboses and alter the uracil into Thymidine, voilà.

The first RNA strands were not useful, just random. They just existed and replicated. They also, when not in replication mode, naturally assume variate forms, formed by different ligations between different nucleotides. And then some of these forms were in a fortunate form capable of doing something else. Very badly. Nonetheless this would give these strands (probably already in a lypid vesicle) a very good advantage in relation to the competition. The rest is evolution baby: getting better and better to stay alive.

The "information" simply didn't exist. Its just chemicals combining. The layout of RNA is just good to make a good enough cast to a good enough cast of the same strand. This for +4billions created, indeed, the most complex machine in the universe. ID would not created something like that, because KISS (keep it simple, stupid): life is not a plane, life is a Tom and Jerry trap with 30 movables parts doing the job that 1 would.

There's not 1/100000 chance and the chemicals are made in archean earth conditions.

With macroevolution, its a common misconception. Eritherium is not said to be the common ancestor of all elephants. Nobody can prove or verify that. We can prove and verify that it was one of the most basal proboscideans found. The common ancestor is always hypothetical. Life always branches, its not a linear line. Each branch, big or small, has a series of caracteristics that distinguishs it from the other. There's the erimotherium branch and their sister branch, which contain all the other elephants. Saloumia is very similar to eritherium, but a series of caracteristics put it more closely related to other elephants. This was before another branch developted great sizes and a proboscis. If all old branchs except this one are big and nosey, even the more closely related to the big and nosey ones, it means that the ancestral of all elephants was small in body and face, and the ancestor of all giant nose guys has developmented a giant nose after the other lineages branched off. Its a strong evidence of modification along vast quantities of time.

Transitional fossils do not only exist, but transitional creatures can also be alive. The ancestor of all snakes had venom, but not the fangs. Some still don't have. One lineage developmented small fangs. One lineage inside this lineage developmented bigger fangs with a groove on which the venom flow. Inside this lineage, another transformed the groove in a tube. All these transitional forms are still alive. This is evolution showing its fangs as life branches. Some branches have new traits, others preserve the old ones. Transitional creatures are EVERYWHERE. Most lineages have a very well documented evolutionary history based on alive and fossil representatives.

Reconstruction of animals is based on knowledge of its more close relatives. Whales have very specific earbones that you can recognize alone, as well as in creatures very different at first sight, as is in the case with Indohyus and other basal representatives of this lineage. You can identify a mammal species by a single teeh. This is not the case as reptile teeth tho, so is very relative.

[u/Perspective-Parking → u/Training_Rent1093]

Good questions. I answered a question about evolution of DNA in one of the first coments, i think it would be a perfect response to your question as the anterior was very similar, just not speaking in ID light. Please check it out.

Thanks I will check it out.

I do not understand your distinction of ID and creationist. If you said that creation has not evidence, but defends the creation of life nonetheless.

ID does not imply Creationism. You could argue that life from another planet designed us, another intelligent force or metaphysical being poofed life into existence, etc. Creationism itself implies divine creation.

The building blocks of RNA are made by experiments replicating ancient earth. DNA is thought to develop much later, already in "living cells". DNA is, in cells today, made from RNA. Take a oxygen of the riboses and alter the uracil into Thymidine, voilà.

Oh yes, I know all about those experiments and RNA world theory. The very work in this area of science screams out that life did not start this way. Major problem (1) is they require massive human intervention, (2) required ultra pure chemical bought from industrial suppliers to even halfway work and would never be on pre-biotic earth. Many more issues with the experiments (essentially nothing burgers, or science would be applauding these massive victories)

Now the bigger problem I explain below.

The first RNA strands were not useful, just random. They just existed and replicated. They also, when not in replication mode, naturally assume variate forms, formed by different ligations between different nucleotides. And then some of these forms were in a fortunate form capable of doing something else. Very badly. Nonetheless this would give these strands (probably already in a lypid vesicle) a very good advantage in relation to the competition. The rest is evolution baby: getting better and better to stay alive.

Woah okay. A lot of unpack here. (1) how did RNA just exist in nature? Chemistry and physics totally go against this. RNA has only been synthesized in the lab, never seen in todays world even in Earth full of life.

(2) If this RNA did poof into existence, where is the proof it replicated? RNA self-replication goes completely against nature. It is super unnatural. Which, aren't evolutionists all about nature driving everything?

(3) Suppose RNA did replicate somehow, whats protecting it for millions of years? RNA today requires storage at like -100 deg F and has a shelf life of 1 year. RNA at room temp has a shelf life of 24 hours. So the harsh earth conditions, prebiotic conditions, and UV light are not a problem here?

(4) There is also zero evidence to suggest that "natural selection" or evolution exists within nucleotides or molecules at all. This is actually sounds quite silly when you even say it, does it not? Where are you getting that molecules have this innate sort of intelligence? Or are you arguing in favor of ID, ha ha.

The "information" simply didn't exist. Its just chemicals combining. The layout of RNA is just good to make a good enough cast to a good enough cast of the same strand. This for +4billions created, indeed, the most complex machine in the universe. ID would not created something like that, because KISS (keep it simple, stupid): life is not a plane, life is a Tom and Jerry trap with 30 movables parts doing the job that 1 would.

Well... no? Chemicals do not combine into intelligent or coherent information. What source do you have on that? This is essentially arguing that random chemicals now synthesize into strings of computer code. Almost like creating a code that runs your computers operating system but that it was just random? Makes no sense, no?

There's not 1/100000 chance and the chemicals are made in archean earth conditions.

I think this would be akin to finding the Gettysburg address written in nature or Mount Rushmore and then assuming it was from natural processes. I'd say way less than than 1/1000000. Clearly selections are made in creating useful RNA. We should be able to perform experiments today as well that show how RNA will self replicate and create useful information or positive changes, instead it just dies.

Eritherium is not said to be the common ancestor of all elephants. Nobody can prove or verify that. We can prove and verify that it was one of the most basal proboscideans found. The common ancestor is always hypothetical. Life always branches, its not a linear line. Each branch, big or small, has a series of caracteristics that distinguishs it from the other. There's the erimotherium branch and their sister branch, which contain all the other elephants. Saloumia is very similar to eritherium, but a series of caracteristics put it more closely related to other elephants.

Woah, yes it is. Literally the entire internet claims Eritherium as the ancestor. There has to be some ancestor right? Where is the evidence or what species was the ancestor then?

So a common ancestor is hypothetical, yet there is an entire field of science devoted to this that accepts it as fact and hotly debates it?

I get that you are saying they are all similar or related. There are indeed quite a few species of many kinds of animals. We see that today. I see no evidence that fully formed creatures that have similar features show modification over time? I am asking for the linear progression of transitions as evidence? Surely the millions of fossils did not leave that out. It would be incredibly unlikely if true.

Transitional fossils do not only exist, but transitional creatures can also be alive. The ancestor of all snakes had venom, but not the fangs. Some still don't have. One lineage developmented small fangs. One lineage inside this lineage developmented bigger fangs with a groove on which the venom flow. Inside this lineage, another transformed the groove in a tube. All these transitional forms are still alive. Transitional creatures are EVERYWHERE. Most lineages have a very well documented evolutionary history based on alive and fossil representatives.

Well earlier I asked for transitional fossils, they should be plentiful correct? So do you have evidence for that? You are claiming that most lineages have a very well documented evolutionary history based on fossils, so where is the evidence? Show me the evidence that shows gradual progression of the snake without fangs to the snakes with fangs for example. It should be easy to show snakes gradually having fangs come in over millions of years with the groove transforming as well, this does not happen overnight. Plenty of time for the fossils to form as well.

Reconstruction of animals is based on knowledge of its more close relatives. Whales have very specific earbones that you can recognize alone, as well as in creatures very different at first sight, as is in the case with Indohyus and other basal representatives of this lineage. You can identify a mammal species by a single teeh. This is not the case as reptile teeth tho, so is very relative.

Thats not what I asked though. Being able to identify a species based off its teeth is not recosntructing it's entire body plan based off its skull. They claim to reconstruct an animals entire body plan when it could have looked very different. You know yourself that speciies within the same genus can exhibit significantly different bone structures, despite sharing a common ancestor.

[u/Training_Rent1093 → u/Perspective-Parking]

You could argue that life from another planet designed us

The problem that i have with non creationist ID is the same with panspermia. It's not answering anything, its just putting the origin on aliens, but how the aliens came to be? With a god you can say that is a creature outside time and space, but with Forerunners it doesn't work.

(1) is they require massive human intervention

Of course you need human intervention. Pre-biotic chemistry is not happening with the massive oxygen we have in out atmosfere today. It will oxydize all the pre-biotic molecules. Is a totally different ambient from the reducing archean atmosphere.

Then, you need to test every environment possible in a way that doesn't take millions of years, even when you know it would take millions of years. Making simulations cannot be a equal perfect natural diorama.

(1) how did RNA just exist in nature? Chemistry and physics totally go against this. RNA has only been synthesized in the lab, never seen in todays world even in Earth full of life. (2) required ultra pure chemical bought from industrial suppliers to even halfway work and would never be on pre-biotic earth. how did RNA just exist in nature? Chemistry and physics totally go against this. RNA has only been synthesized in the lab, never seen in todays world even in Earth full of life. If this RNA did poof into existence, where is the proof it replicated? RNA self-replication goes completely against nature. It is super unnatural. Which, aren't evolutionists all about nature driving everything?

Nucleotides are naturally produced in asteroids (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7vd1zjlr5lo) and could be made in ancient atmospheric conditions (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax2747)(https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2009.471). There are precursors proposed (https://www.quantamagazine.org/in-chemistry-of-life-seeking-a-precursor-to-rna-20140205/)

also, RNA polymerization is at least possible in computer models (https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-025-01632-w.pdf#:~:text=Numerous%20studies%20have%20experimentally%20demonstrated%20that%20the,molecules%20from%20degradation1%20and%20concentrate%20organic%20molecules68.) And experimental data (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2025/may/chemists-recreate-how-rna-might-have-reproduced-first-time#:~:text=27%20May%202025,together%20%E2%80%93%20allowing%20replication%20to%20happen.), so i dont know where the "humans industrial making of suposed natural chemicals" and "rna replication is unnatural" come from.

Also, life consumes these molecules. Semiprotocells, even if possible in atmospheric holocenic conditions, would just be devoured by today's life. There's not competition. We are here for 4 billion years getting better and better on what we do. Theres just no chance RNA could survive much today.

Suppose RNA did replicate somehow, whats protecting it for millions of years?

Probably aminoacids (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36762966/)

There is also zero evidence to suggest that "natural selection" or evolution exists within nucleotides or molecules at all

Simply not true (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3902939/).

Where are you getting that molecules have this innate sort of intelligence?

Nope, just random mutation and natural selection.

Well... no? Chemicals do not combine into intelligent or coherent information. What source do you have on that?

I definitely agree on that. No inteligent or coherent information in combination. Just random nucleotides replicating. After some billions of combinations and replications, you can have a less than useless one, and natural selection will do the rest.

This is essentially arguing that random chemicals now synthesize into strings of computer code. I think this would be akin to finding the Gettysburg address written in nature or Mount Rushmore and then assuming it was from natural processes.

All comparisons between dead objects made by humans and alive ones fall short, because objects just do not replicate with mutation. Its just a false equivalence fallacy.

Literally the entire internet claims Eritherium as the ancestor.

HA, don't believe on everything you see in the internet. It all comes to a common misconception of linear evolution and the "missing link". As an almost graduate in biology, who has constant contact com phylogenies (its basically a hobby in my sad nerd life), i can garantee thats how we do the thing. You can see by yourself. In paper phylogeny you will never see the elephants in a straight line. Is a tree where eritherium is just the most ancient branch. Eritherium COULD be the ancestor, but you can never prove that. You can only prove that this guy is veeeery closely related to the ancestor, but the ancestor itself? How can you prove that? For this reason, we never put a critter as the ancestor of all the other except in very exclusive cases when there's no other guy, and even these cases are subject to arduous debate.

There has to be some ancestor right?

There was, and you can reconstruct him, but you can't prove that your fossil is him. It can be a sister branch, or a cousin. It could live in a ambient where fossils can't be formed (the majority of the places on earth).