I'm sorry, but I must -- Evolution!

[Cerise]

Personally, I think "Who Cares" is a good option number three.

[Asimov]

We could then disqualify biblical creationism.  ...not that it hasn't been already.

 

 

No, in a couple hundred years the Creationists of tomorrow will be saying that Abiogenesis and Life on other planets is in the bible, and they'll provide quotes to "prove it", then act all pompous about how EVERYTHING is in the bible, and say things like "man...scientists are looking at the natural world when they should just look at the bible, it has explanation for everything."

[Ouroboros]

Telling stories is great, as long as you let everyone one know you're full of shit.

 

That's the problem with the Bible.  Someone forgot to have the Comic Code Authority approve it, and now everyone thinks it's real.

 

Yup, the first page to the Bible got lost, but will be found one day.

 

From Red Dwarf:

Groovy Channel 27

Friday 27 of Gheldof

 

Archeologist near Mount Sinai

Missing page from the Bible, believed to be the first page.

It says as follows:

 

To my darling Candy, all characters portrayed within this book are fictitious and any resemblances to persons living or dead are purely coincidental.

[Ouroboros]

Why are the only choices for the origins of life

1. Abiogenesis - Life formed from non life on earth.

2. God

 

I have always thought there was at least one more possibility...

3. Life started else where and got here by traveling on a meteor or the like.

 

We know that bacteria exist in the deepest parts of the ocean. Light here is very limited, the temperatures are very extreme.

 

What if, while exploring our solar system, we find bacteria on any of the planetary bodies?

 

Isn’t life forming (abiogenesis) on another world at least possible? I am not talking about humans mind you, just bacteria. Bacteria exist in all climates and extremes on this planet. This would change the amount of available time and the number of possible locations for the initial reaction to occur, thereby changing the probability of the right circumstances occurring considerably.

 

So am I off my rocker, Spooky…Neil? 

 

4. Or Aliens, if we would believe the Raelians in France

[Ouroboros]

No, in a couple hundred years the Creationists of tomorrow will be saying that Abiogenesis and Life on other planets is in the bible, and they'll provide quotes to "prove it", then act all pompous about how EVERYTHING is in the bible, and say things like "man...scientists are looking at the natural world when they should just look at the bible, it has explanation for everything."

So true!

 

"Let there be light" translates to "Big Bang"

 

"the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." translates to Abiogenesis

 

"the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven" etc translates to Evolution.

[Amanda]

No, in a couple hundred years the Creationists of tomorrow will be saying that Abiogenesis and Life on other planets is in the bible, and they'll provide quotes to "prove it", then act all pompous about how EVERYTHING is in the bible, and say things like "man...scientists are looking at the natural world when they should just look at the bible, it has explanation for everything."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Asimov... We all know that science is the only one that can do that... reevaluate their interpretations of what they see and modify it with their progressive cumulative capabilities to decipher and modify one's belief to what IS actually there. So, we can only operate within the perameters to say 'look at science, ONLY it has an explanation for everything'?

 

The difference is that SOME Biblical scholars are willing to include in their resources the aspects of science and other disciplines... while SOME scientist precludes anything but science... and of course that makes Science best... in their world.

 

Any discipline that only recognizes and limits itself to its own discipline, seems to me, has got to be self limiting by the mere definition. Perhaps a consideration to inclusive possibilities could expand and reveal more revelations... although I know I'm speaking to the wrong audience for all that... and this is a wonderful arena, if not the best, I appreciate and value.

[spamandham]

Possible origins of the spark of life:

 

1a. Biblical creation

1b. Some other god based creation

1c. Some other form of non-god based magic

2. Earth based organic chemical abiogenesis

3. Alien seeding / non-earth based chemical abiogenesis

4. Spontaneous formation by chance of a complete basic life form

5. Non-god based intelligent design from outside the known universe (matrix theory)

6. Intelligence of some form and the existence of the universe are interdependent

7. A yet unknown natural explanation

8. A yet unknown metaphysical (non-natural) explanation

9. Now is all that exists and there is no explanation as a result

 

Are there others?

 

The point is that what scientists are just now beginning to experiment with is by no means the only alternative to Biblical creationism. These guys have already decided it can't be (2) based on the fact that the field has yet to prove itself, even though it is in its infancy. Ok fine, what about all these other possibilities?

 

You may not like the idea of alien seeding, and I don't see how it's testable, but it can not simply be dismissed for that reason. It is a natural explanation within the realm of possibilities. We don't know that organic nucleic life is the only kind possible. Alien abiogenesis might be perfectly reasonable and not face the hurdles of earth based abiogenesis (assuming there really are some).

 

Yes, the odds of a fully formed basic lifeform spontaneously assembling are unimaginably small, but it is not 0! You can't simply dismiss a natural explanation in favor of 'magic' just because of it's likelihood. As long as the probability is not identically 0, that may be what happened.

 

There could be intelligent design that engineered the spark of life, without being a Bible god. Our universe could be a quantum simulation in a universe that's totally different, and the guy running it could have inserted the spark as part of the experiment.

[Amanda]

"Let there be light" translates to "Big Bang"

 

"the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." translates to Abiogenesis

 

"the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven" etc translates to Evolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

HanSolo...

 

I'm curious to know... if YOU actually perceive those remarks as fair and just?

 

Is it just a plain protocol of yours that anything taken from scriptures is automatically debunked without any sincere consideration?

 

If so, is this typical of everyone's approach here... to regard a person in such a manner when they speak from a discipline/perspective of which one has little knowledge... or just yours? I'm just curious to know...

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo...

 

I'm curious to know... if YOU actually perceive those remarks as fair and just?

 

Is it just a plain protocol of yours that anything taken from scriptures is automatically debunked without any sincere consideration?

 

If so, is this typical of everyone's approach here... to regard a person in such a manner when they speak from a discipline/perspective of which one has little knowledge... or just yours? I'm just curious to know... 

What? What'd I do?

 

I'll make fun of the bible if I so want, and I'd make fun of William Shakespeare too, or Harry Potter or whatever. A book is a book. And in this site, gloves are off, no blasphemy laws apply here.

 

Btw, it wasn't blasphemy anyway, or demeaning in any way and neither was I debunking the Bible... Why wouldn't those segments of the bible correspond to those parts of science? Even in a joking way?

[John]

MrSpooky, why doesn’t anyone intentionally try to make the perfect broth for themselves without nature having to do it for them i.e. having all twenty left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars? Is it possible? Has anyone attempted this? We then could see if they actually link together.

 

Modern scientists are looking at hydrothermal vents and meteoric compounds with the idea from Miller-Urey that "amino acids are easy to produce in the right environment... when we find the right environment we'll find the likely place where proteins came from." Scientists are working on it.

 

Heat causes amino acids to break down more quickly, doesn’t it?

 

Again you miss the point entirely. RNA is found to have the capacity to act as a catalyst for certain reactions just as enzymes do: this is a pretty big deal. If these reactions include the facilitation of transcription and polymerization, we would have found a structure that can by itself (without depending on DNA or proteins) act as a substrate for life. Do we know how this could be done? No, but the fact that RNA can BOTH convey information and perform complex polymer reactions means that this is a good starting point to look for the beginnings of the seeds of life. Scientists are working on it.

 

Take note you said certain reactions, which I had agreed with you. I thought I countered this with my below statements:

 

Yes, some varieties of RNA in living cells do have a restricted power to catalyze chemical reactions, but this is surely no undertaking that a more crude pre-RNA could catalyze a lot with no aid from DNA.

 

Of course, you believe that an uncomplicated substance could catalyze chemical reactions a lot better than real RNA, i.e., well adequate to bring forth proteins all by itself. Enzymes, accelerate up chemical reactions, otherwise these reactions would occur so tardily, the cell would expire while it awaited for the first protein to be brought in.

 

MrSpooky, just curious, how long would it take to create just one new protein?

 

You'll note that meteoric carbon contain amphiphilic compounds that could act as lipid structures to form bilayer membranes. It is quite patently false that such chemicals can only be made by a "'real manufacturing plant' such as a living cell."

 

Alright, I’ll concede.

 

Again, John, the jump you make from "abiogenesis to unsupported" to "abiogenesis is unsupportable" is a huge leap, especially when, as I've shown you, we have the supporting structures to conduct a serious scientific inquiry in the matter.

 

I believe it’s a huge leap to consider a pre-RNA molecule could self-replicate and catalyze an assembly of proteins, but perhaps I’m wrong. I'll retract my assertion that "abiogenesis is unsupportable".

[Asimov]

Asimov... We all know that science is the only one that can do that... reevaluate their interpretations of what they see and modify it with their progressive cumulative capabilities to decipher and modify one's belief to what IS actually there. So, we can only operate within the perameters to say 'look at science, ONLY it has an explanation for everything'?   

 

Uh...not. Science studies the natural world, and then theorizes based on those discoveries and observations. What is funny is that after these discoveries, Christians point to certain verses in Scripture, interpret them a different way, and say "look, that scientific discovery was in the bible all along, lolz, those silly scientists." The problem with this, is that if the Bible is filled with such huge amounts of info on science, why didn't they think these things before? It's because they didn't have anything to base a re-interpretation, because they had no fucking clue!! It's like interpreting a poem from 100 years ago and saying "Look! Shakespeare is talking about dental hygiene in here, what a genius!!"

 

The difference is that SOME Biblical scholars are willing to include in their resources the aspects of science and other disciplines... while SOME scientist precludes anything but science... and of course that makes Science best... in their world.

 

How is that even relevant? Biblical scholarship has nothing to do with science, or how science works. Why should science include biblical scholarship in its study of the natural world?

 

Any discipline that only recognizes and limits itself to its own discipline, seems to me, has got to be self limiting by the mere definition. Perhaps a consideration to inclusive possibilities could expand and reveal more revelations... although I know I'm speaking to the wrong audience for all that... and this is a wonderful arena, if not the best, I appreciate and value.

 

What other inclusive possibilities? You first have to demonstrate that other possibilities exist before stating that they do.

[MrSpooky]

MrSpooky, why doesn’t anyone intentionally try to make the perfect broth for themselves without nature having to do it for them i.e. having all twenty left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars? Is it possible? Has anyone attempted this? We then could see if they actually link together.

 

1. We don't have have a very clear idea on what the "perfect broth" would be. Furthermore, some of these steps appear to have occured independantly of each other but intermixed in a medium such as water.

 

2. We don't have a reaction vessel large enough to do so in a concievable manner. That, and making sure it's sterilized of biotic compounds would be a hell of a project.

 

 

 

Heat causes amino acids to break down more quickly, doesn’t it?

 

This is an incredibly vague statement. Heat in the right degrees can facilitate or inhibit certain chemical reactions. There are also many other factors that take place, including the presence of metallic catalysts, pH, compounds present, etc.

 

 

 

(in regards to RNA as a catalyst) Take note you said certain reactions, which I had agreed with you. I thought I countered this with my below statements:

 

RNA catalysts themselves are the basis for many critical and basic biochemical functions such as the formation of proteins, the splicing of junk introns from RNA, etc. They aren't simple catalysts at all.

 

Also take note that a polymer is just a repeated sequence of very simple components. Be careful if you marvel at the "complexity" of a polymer in the future. It's basic structure is freakishly simple, it's the synergy of its components that matters.

 

 

 

I believe it’s a huge leap to consider a pre-RNA molecule could self-replicate and catalyze an assembly of proteins, but perhaps I’m wrong.

 

Self-replication isn't that amazing of a phenomenon in organic chemistry. Clays self-replicate, crystals self-replicate. Very simple molecular structures can self-replicate.

 

What matters it how basic replicating molecules made this transition to biotic life.

[Guest Joseph]

That is my POINT!!!!

 

Why do you people insist on hiding behind name calling and insults?

 

I do not see them hiding, in fact I see them refuting your argument hands down.

 

Evolution doesn’t address the key issue of where life came from.

 

This is a moronic statement outright. It is the same as saying that general relativity doesn't tell us where the pink unicorn comes from.

 

You are not phrasing your question/statement (whatever it is) correctly in order to allow for an answer. Evolution deals with life coming from pre-existing life, an "evolution" to more complex/advanced? forms over the billions of years the Earth has existed.

 

The theory which deals with the origins of life from inorganic material would be the theory of abiogenesis. Your argument is flawed at the very basis and I can not accept that you are so retarded as to not realize this. Anyone who can believe that a virgin can give birth, that a person must commit symbolic/actual cannibalism to have salvation, and that God had to kill himself/son upon a tree in order to simply forgive you of actions he already knew you were going to do before he made you should have the...ahhh...the ahh....well shit I forget where I was going with that one.

 

Anyways, where you ever get this through your thick head or not, your statement/question is phrased wrong. You are very correct that evolution does not say where life came from...but science has a general idea from simple bio-chemistry.

 

You can’t deny that so you result to “that isn’t the point, F-you, you idiot”.

 

You are correct genious, no one can deny that a theory which states that life evolves from simplier forms over time through a process of natural selection can say that this theory is about the origin of life. They would by default not know what they are talking about. What I am having a hard time getting through here-in is that you are so stupid as to think that the absence of the origin of life in the theory of evolution weakens it somehow when it does not. The theory was never intended to make a claim about the origin of life, it was about how life evolves. You have to look at OTHER theories for the "origin" of the first organic chemicals / forms.

 

Where life came from is EXACTLY the point.

 

This is the famous "God of the Gaps" argument which science has put to bed repeatedly over the ages. Whenever science reaches a point that further investigation is marred by technological leve and/or data, theological persons argue "God did it." The point however is that the more we progress through time the more data is found and the more technology is developed, pushing the deity of that respective argument further into the background and allowing the natural laws of our universe to the the guide.

 

Evolutionary theory's point is not to answer where life came from, and your attempt to say that it is a lacking theory because of such stupidity makes your argument exceptionally flawed from the get go, you in actuality have no argument.

 

That is what science wants to know.

 

Where did you attend university and in what field? I would say to go back there and punch your prof's in the face and burn your diploma but in this age you have to be careful about such things. But needless to say science is NOT about the origin of life alone. Science is vast, and no so much the why but the how. Einstein did not care whether "god / God" did it, he wanted to know HOW it was done, to understand the laws and properties of our natural universe.

 

Science would work whether a deity is the root result or not, because it is looking for the how...not the why. The why is philsophical in nature.

 

Also, you really need to stop saying that evolution is "weak" or "wrong" because it does not say the where life comes from. Evolution works whether life was a fluke of chemical processes or planted here by aliens or seeded by comets, et al. It happens and there is vast evidence for it.

 

“Where did we come from?”

 

From miraculously generated dust particles generated by a magical invisible all knowing all powerful all present Entity which then breathed life into us. This Entity also saw fit to make plants before light and to have placed an evil serpent in a perfect paradise. This perfect Entity also saw fit to place mortality upon man for actions that mankind did before mankind had the knowledge of what was good and evil. Of course that is for another post thread about the lunacy of taking Genesis account literally....I digress.

 

We probably come from an organic soup. Primitive hot Earth. Perhaps seeded by comet impacts and other extreme events. But that is just one theory inwhich we have the ego to think that life started on Earth. We might end up finding out that we are nothing more than an experiment by life that came about on another world. We might find out that life is based upon the very chemical reactions that natural law allows...it is "meant" to happen because the natural universal laws are "just right." But that stinks of egotism perhaps. The funniest thing of all, is that to make the claim that your particular idea of magical pixie is what set everything in motion is perhaps the most egotistical idea ever...with zero support for it except the endoctrinated brainwashing of a misspent youth.

 

Grow up, think for yourself, and learn how to form an argument. Then come back here and try to tell us that your magical pixie is better than mine.

 

Evolution doesn’t address the key issue of life beginning.

 

It was never meant to, you retarded primate.

I have seen monkeys who throw shit at people show more ability to learn.

 

Creation does.

 

The ONLY THING that "creationism" teaches is that "god did it." From this you will not get information of how to create genetic drugs through using similiar genetic species to test upon. You will not learn how to cure illness. You will not learn how to fight infections. You will not learn chemical processes which life requires to survive and how to ensure that these processes continue on.

 

The only thing you get is a nice building you can go to once or a few times a week and pray for god to help cure you of some horrible disease while you suffer and die. Because it was your particular deities will.

 

Science on the other hand will use reasoning and evidence driven empirical testing to save your dumb ass through medical ideas which are directly generated through the knowledge that we are a part of an evolutionary process. And what you will do with this is thank your particular deity and come back here and say that "god did it."

 

You may not agree with Creationism, but it is a much more complete theory in regards to explaining how we came to be.

 

Evolutionary theory is complete for what it is trying to claim. All the particulars are not exactly worked out but given time there is a probability that they will be.

 

Creationism is not "much more complete theory in regards to explaining how we came to be." All it says is that some magical higher entity took some dust and blew on it and man popped into being. This is not how he did it, or in what manner, or even WHEN he did it. All this is, is "God did it." And all this does is remove from mankind the ability to question the reality presented to him due to blind faith in ancient texts due to youthful brainwashing instead of allowing mankind advancement through skeptical reasoning and evidence driven science.

 

It starts from the BEGINNNG and brings us to where we are. Evolution doesn’t.

 

Evolution may not start at the beginning, but it does what it (as a theory about how life evolves) is suppose to do.

 

Creationism may start at the beginning, but so does the story of three little pigs, the wizard of oz, mary poppins, et al. Because a mythos is "complete" does not make it rational, reasonable, meaningful, reality, nor does it make it applicable.

 

Only unquestioning blind faith does such a thing, you poor poor bastard.

[webmdave]

Thank you Joseph!

[Mr. Neil]

I do not see them hiding, in fact I see them refuting your argument hands down.

I'm afraid I must correct and explain your statement here, Joseph. You see, in order for us to refute his argument, he has to first have one.

 

Invictus is just griping, because he doesn't like that evolution doesn't have to change its scope to accomodate an argument with creationists.

 

Basically, he's just being a bitch.

 

Personally, I must say that I'm somewhat pleased to see him basically following the outline of the comic I made. He seems so utterly unaware that he's proving my point by continuing this fruitless engagement.

 

And you know, as soon as he gets tired of having evolution explained to him, he'll go right back to his "evolution isn't proven" lie, thus proving that he doesn't understand science.

 

Your post hit all the right points, by the way. Good job!

[♦ ficino ♦]

From miraculously generated dust particles generated by a magical invisible all knowing all powerful all present Entity which then breathed life into us.  This Entity also saw fit to make plants before light and to have placed an evil serpent in a perfect paradise.  This perfect Entity also saw fit to place mortality upon man for actions that mankind did before mankind had the knowledge of what was good and evil.  Of course that is for another post thread about the lunacy of taking Genesis account literally....I digress.

 

 

 

Science ... will use reasoning and evidence driven empirical testing to save your dumb ass through medical ideas which are directly generated through the knowledge that we are a part of an evolutionary process.  And what you will do with this is thank your particular deity and come back here and say that "god did it."

Evolutionary theory is complete for what it is trying to claim.  All the particulars are not exactly worked out but given time there is a probability that they will be.

 

Creationism is not "much more complete theory in regards to explaining how we came to be."  All it says is that some magical higher entity took some dust and blew on it and man popped into being.  This is not how he did it, or in what manner, or even WHEN he did it.  All this is, is "God did it."  And all this does is remove from mankind the ability to question the reality presented to him due to blind faith in ancient texts due to youthful brainwashing instead of allowing mankind advancement through skeptical reasoning and evidence driven science.

 

 

Amen, Joseph, preach it, brother!

 

Some tract I read said the probability of abiogenesis is 1 in 10 to the 48th. Another tract said it's 1 in 10 to the 256th.

 

The probability of life's coming to be is 1.

 

The probability of all the propositions of the Bible's being true is 0.

 

The probability of the God of the Bible's existing? I'd say that's 0, too. Maybe some deistic something exists somewhere...

 

so which is more probable: A. abiogenesis or

B. the God of the Bible?

Answer: A

[♦ ficino ♦]

Only unquestioning blind faith does such a thing, you poor poor bastard.

 

 

Poor poor bastard #2 pretending to be Ficino replying:

 

why don't you face the fact, Joseph, that evolution is only a theory, you put your faith in it, and evolution can't explain the origin of life! We christians know the origin of life: God did it!

 

Bwa ha ha

[Guest WhatIsTruth9]

thankful,

 

Do you even understand what I am saying?

 

I am agreeing with you and the others that evolution does NOT address the origins of life.

 

Creation does.

 

It is not fair to the evolutionist to compare the 2 because evolution is not as encompassing a theory as creation.

 

Some even argue that evolution is simply a sub-contractor for creation.

 

You should understand what I am saying more than anyone here because you are the one that started a thread entitled “Assuming that there is a creator…”

 

--------------------

 

Spooky,

 

Are you trying to insinuate that evolution has an abundance of evidence????

 

Evolution doesn’t even have a foundation. To even begin discussing it, you must first assume life was created by either a deity or some process yet to be determined.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh yes Creationism...so you base your opinions on a book that wasn't even written when the world to you was created by a bunch of men who said they had visions from god.............

 

 

To do this you have to prove your book was divinely inspired which you cannot do.

 

Since Creationism is based on the bibble...and primarily the OT, and since you cannot prove that the bibble was written by BibleGod or divinely inspired by BibleGod or any other god, then your creationism theory goes the fuck out the window.

 

With scientific tests and bones of Australopithecus afarensis or "Lucy" , which have been dated to around 3.5 to maybe even 4 million years old how can you creationists still babble that the world is only 6 thousand years old?

 

Everyone here admits that evolution does not tell where everthing "came from". But when your theory can't even be proven logically, (nor does it have a foundation)...well..

 

Try again...boy.

 

*sorry if I'm repeating anything already said*

[Ouroboros]

And I just had to add a little 2cent again.

 

There are at least 7 extremely hard problems in Math, that hasn't been solved yet. If you solve one of these, you'll make one million dollars. I'm not kidding, this is true.

 

But now if there are things in math that hasn't been explained yet, unsolved problems, then according to Invictusianism, math doesn't exist! 1+1 is not 2 by mathematical logic, but by GOD logic! (That could explain why 1+1+1=1 is true in Christianity.)

 

So don't let godism regulate our research and science, because then we can close down all science labs, and return our cars to the car shop, throw away our TV, and turn of the PC you sit in front of. They're all built on knowledge from the scientific field, developed with the same mindset and framework as evolution has been. There are network routers that use the genetic algebra to optimize network traffic, as well as oil pipe systems.

 

Invictus should not complain about how science work, or how much trust people put into it, because he's depending completely on it every second of his life, yet he denies its validity.

 

It's a shame. It’s like biting the hand that feeds you.

[MrSpooky]

Spooky,

 

Are you trying to insinuate that evolution has an abundance of evidence????

 

Evolution doesn’t even have a foundation. To even begin discussing it, you must first assume life was created by either a deity or some process yet to be determined.

 

Okay, I don't recall seeing this quote... but here.

 

Evolution has an abundance of evidence for explaining the workings of life just as modern physics has an abundance of evidence for explaining the workings of matter and force. Despite the fact that we don't know how the matter and energy came into existence befire the Planck time, this does not at all compromise the fact a body in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by an equal and opposite force, etc.

 

Is Big Bang cosmology relevant? Most certainly. However, it is a mistake to say that physics depends on a complete knowledge of the Big Bang... physics depends on the PRODUCT of the Big Bang, NOT on the MECHANICS of the Big Bang itself. On the same token, Evolution is dependant on the PRODUCT of abiogenesis, NOT on the MECHANICS of abiogenesis itself. If you want proof that the product of abiogenesis exist, I'll point you to life. But you want an explanation of the mechanics of life, I'll say quite honestly "We don't know, but this hopefully temporary ignorance is irrelevant to evolutionary biology."

 

Furthermore, when are you going to stop pushing the goalposts back? If we one day discover the means of abiogenesis, will you then say evolution and abiogenesis are unsupported because of some hole in our understanding of how our planet came into existence? If we prove that, will you then say evolution-abiogenesis-astronomy is unsupported because of some hole in our understanding of Big Bang cosmology? If that is proven, will you then say that evolution-abiogenesis-astronomy-cosmology is unsupported because we have yet to explain "why existence rather than nonexistence?" (an unintelligible question, I assure you)

 

When does your fatuous methodology of inquiry end on solid and relevant ground?

[Guest Joseph]

(snip)

Despite the fact that we don't know how the matter and energy came into existence [before] the Planck time, this does not at all compromise the fact a body in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by an equal and opposite force, etc.

 

Actually, (not to be a drag, but...)

 

A body in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force.

 

That force doesn't necessarily have to be "equal" or "opposite" to affect/effect the "body." It could simply change the direction slightly or perhaps slow the object down. I know, nit picky but I didn't want the creationist showing up correcting you.

 

(snip)

On the same token, Evolution is dependant on the PRODUCT of abiogenesis, NOT on the MECHANICS of abiogenesis itself.  If you want proof that the product of abiogenesis exist, I'll point you to life.  But you want an explanation of the mechanics of life, I'll say quite honestly "We don't know, but this hopefully temporary ignorance is irrelevant to evolutionary biology."

(snip)

When does your fatuous methodology of inquiry end on solid and relevant ground?

 

Look, anyone coming here to claim that religion has provided once particle of the promises that it grandly claims are capable is a nut. There is no more vapid thing than to waste one's life begging their respective god/God to do something for them. Science on the other hand has provided all the respective claims that religion never provided. A means to cure the ill, save the sick, bring back the dead, and push back invasive bugs and other species. No more do we kill animals and burn them so that the rain shall come we merely plot the weather patterns. No more do we cower in fear at the thunder and lightning and have to offer our children to the gods in order to appease them.

 

We have come to a point from which all gods have been pushed back from our reality, Zeus is not on his mountain neither are the gods of any other faith within our reality. And mankind still clings to such things because they will not investigate the beliefs of their forefathers. Questioning the enculturation from which he has come so that he will not be servant to that unquestioning vapidness from which his theological stance was derived. It is exactly because of brave men putting their lives on the line repeatedly up through mankind's history that we have the freedoms we now enjoy, and it is exactly because these men questioned whether "god" existed or not that allowed them to give mankind the freedom to choose their god for themselves instead of forcing some blind theology upon all man.

[MrSpooky]

Oop, thanks dude. I've just got Newton on the brain. =P

[John]

1. We don't have have a very clear idea on what the "perfect broth" would be. Furthermore, some of these steps appear to have occured independantly of each other but intermixed in a medium such as water.

 

But, hydrolysis would easily take apart RNA molecules, wouldn’t it?

 

2. We don't have a reaction vessel large enough to do so in a concievable manner. That, and making sure it's sterilized of biotic compounds would be a hell of a project.

 

Ok.

 

Also take note that a polymer is just a repeated sequence of very simple components. Be careful if you marvel at the "complexity" of a polymer in the future. It's basic structure is freakishly simple, it's the synergy of its components that matters.

 

Alright, I’ll admit, I was amazed by the complexness.

 

MrSpooky, perhaps I haven’t made it clear, but where are the phosphates, nucleobases, and sugars in the experimentations? The question is: How do you create this components for nucleotides? This is basically the foundation of abiogenesis, so where are these components? Maybe, as you say, research will eventually pay off.

 

I did find an interesting quote though:

 

“On September 28, 1969, a meteorite that fell over Murchison, Victoria, Australia was found to contain over 90 different amino acids, nineteen of which are found in Earth life.”

 

WTF?! Where is this shit being produced?

[MrSpooky]

You don't know about amino acid production in space? I must say, I'm surprised.

 

Earth was bombarded with meteors bigger than the little wussy one that killed off the dinosaurs early in its history. We also know that amino acids can be produced in space.

 

 

 

But, hydrolysis would easily take apart RNA molecules, wouldn’t it?

 

I dunno, mayyyybe. But RNA is incredibly resistant to lots of chemicals and degradative forces... it's a remarkably stable little bugger. In the lab I work at, we have to devote a separate bench JUST for RNA and take great care not to contaminate anything because it's so pervasive and stable. We even lace our buffers with RNA-degrading enzymes.

 

 

 

Alright, I’ll admit, I was amazed by the complexness.

 

Don't be. A polymer is just a chain of simpler components, it's not in itself a mechanical construct people think it is. It's just that the polymer has specific effects given its linear sequence.

 

 

 

MrSpooky, perhaps I haven’t made it clear, but where are the phosphates, nucleobases, and sugars in the experimentations? The question is: How do you create this components for nucleotides? This is basically the foundation of abiogenesis, so where are these components?

 

I dunno about phosphates and nucleobases, but sugars are also relatively simple chemicals: an alcohol that takes on a ring formation. Don't recall the exact mechanism (it's been a while since O-Chem) but I do remember studying it.

 

There's lots of ring reactions.

[John]

You don't know about amino acid production in space? I must say, I'm surprised.

 

I didn’t know there were that many amino acids. Yeah, I know, I’m ignorant.