Scientists Create Building Block for Life - God Not Required

[Mr Cheese]

the proof is in the pudding

when the science has actually produced results

The we can "close" the book...

Until then...

"I saw some piglets sucking their dead mother.
After a short while they shuddered and went away.
They had sensed that she could no longer see them
and that she wasn't like them any more.
What they loved in their mother wasn't her body,
but whatever it was that made her body live."

~ Confucius

 

[Mr Cheese]

because lets face it, we dont know for a fact,what earth was like billions of years ago.

.

 

[Heneni]

Do you have a headache:help:. Were you here billions of years ago? Where you here at the exact moment that life 'evolved'? Oh wait...were you here to prove that life started from a blob of goo? Were you here to know the EXACT conditions under which life evolved? Was there a lab before there there was the RNA?

Or hang on a minute....were there scientists before there was RNA? What came first in these experiments the scientists are doing? The RNA or the scientist?

If anything the scientist just proved that unless there is someone behind the testtube.....RNA would not have been created.

Heneni

 

[Jose Fly]

From one of the articles:



And where are the 'winning out' species now? Alive? Dead? And can you call something a 'specie' unless it has DNA? What they dont tell you is the life-expectancy of the 'winning species'. For this to prove evolution, the lifetime of the RNA has to be long enough to produce DNA within the same lifecycle.

And, to say that this is how life evolved billions of years ago, is rather incorrect. Its how RNA did what it did in a lab, which does not exactly replicate the conditions of the earth billions of years ago, because lets face it, we dont know for a fact,what earth was like billions of years ago.

And unless this RNA can make DNA its hardly proof of evolution.

It's always interesting to see how people react to something when their mindset going in is, "I really don't want this to be true".

 

[Heneni]

It's always interesting to see how people react to something when their mindset going in is, "I really don't want this to be true".

The conditions in a lab, is not the same conditions of billions of years ago. How do you know that it is? Dont assume because im a christian i dont like science! I just dont like dishonest science.

I'm happy that you find my response interesting, and I find yours interesting too. You are willing to believe that the conditions in a lab is the same as the conditions billions of years ago? That interesting too. Is that because you WANT to believe in evolution?

 

[Jose Fly]

The conditions in a lab, is not the same conditions of billions of years ago. How do you know that it is?

How do you know that chemically, they aren't the same?

Dont assume because im a christian i dont like science!

Your history of posts indicate that science is not your ally.

I just dont like dishonest science

Are you accusing the researchers of doing something dishonest? If so, what specifically are you accusing them of?

You are willing to believe that the conditions in a lab is the same as the conditions billions of years ago? That interesting too. Is that because you WANT to believe in evolution?

This research isn't about evolution; it's about abiogenesis. I'm pretty sure you've had the difference between the two explained to you before, yet here you are repeating the error. Amazing.

 

[Heneni]

How do you know that chemically, they aren't the same?

How do you know that they are? If you want to say this is how life started started you have to be atleast SURE that the conditions under which it happened is the same. You cant use circumstancial evidence to prove something true.

Your history of posts indicate that science is not your ally.

Wrong again.

Are you accusing the researchers of doing something dishonest? If so, what specifically are you accusing them of?

Streching.

This research isn't about evolution; it's about abiogenesis. I'm pretty sure you've had the difference between the two explained to you before, yet here you are repeating the error. Amazing

I know what abiogenesis is....i started a thread about it. It seems like you are wrong again. Amazing.

 

[Jose Fly]

How do you know that they are?

Because I've read the paper and I'm somewhat familiar with the research into the conditions on the early earth. Can you say the same? Have you even read the actual paper in question?

Streching.

Then why would you say "I don't like dishonest science" in this thread, in the context of this research? Just some random comment that had no meaning?

I know what abiogenesis is....i started a thread about it.

Then why did you ask me "Is that because you WANT to believe in evolution?" in relation to this research? It has nothing to do with evolution, yet you ask if I accept if they accurately represented the conditions of the early earth because I "want to believe in evolution"?

You're not making any sense.

 

[Heneni]

Because I've read the paper and I'm somewhat familiar with the research into the conditions on the early earth. Can you say the same? Have you even read the actual paper in question?

I can read twenty papers on it, it wont make the slightest difference. There is no way of knowing that the conditions of the lab is the same as the conditions on earth billions of years ago.

Then why would you say "I don't like dishonest science" in this thread, in the context of this research? Just some random comment that had no meaning?

The research is about how life started. Well....did it start in a testtube? And, is the contents of the testtube at the same temperature, pressure, humidity etc....as earth was billions of years ago? The question you must ultimately answer...is how does this RNA do what it does in the testtube without the intervention of a scientist? What came first? The scientist or the RNA?

Then why did you ask me "Is that because you WANT to believe in evolution?" in relation to this research? It has nothing to do with evolution, yet you ask if I accept if they accurately represented the conditions of the early earth because I "want to believe in evolution"?

Ok sorry, i should have said...is it because you WANT to believe that life started this way?

 

[Jose Fly]

I can read twenty papers on it, it wont make the slightest difference.

That pretty much says it all right there. "I don't care what they do, or how they do it...all I know is they can't do it."

The research is about how life started. Well....did it start in a testtube?

LOL! I suppose in the creationist/denialist world, that's a valid argument. In the reality-based world however.....

Test tubes, beakers, flasks, etc. are just containers. The key here is what you put in them and what environment they're subjected to.

And, is the contents of the testtube at the same temperature, pressure, humidity etc....as earth was billions of years ago?

As you said earlier, it doesn't matter to you. You won't bother to read the paper to find out, and even if you did it "wouldn't matter".

The question you must ultimately answer...is how does this RNA do what it does in the testtube without the intervention of a scientist? What came first? The scientist or the RNA?

What intervention? Do sperm and egg unite in a test tube the same way they do in a female's body? Gosh, how can that be? Don't they realize they're in a test tube? LOL!

 

[Heneni]

That pretty much says it all right there. "I don't care what they do, or how they do it...all I know is they can't do it."



LOL! I suppose in the creationist/denialist world, that's a valid argument. In the reality-based world however.....

Test tubes, beakers, flasks, etc. are just containers. The key here is what you put in them and what environment they're subjected to.



As you said earlier, it doesn't matter to you. You won't bother to read the paper to find out, and even if you did it "wouldn't matter".



What intervention? Do sperm and egg unite in a test tube the same way they do in a female's body? Gosh, how can that be? Don't they realize they're in a test tube? LOL!

Yeh...well its interesting how you respond to this...the fact is you cannot prove that the conditions in the lab is the same as the conditions billions of years ago, because you cant replicate the conditions of the earth billions of years ago, because you cant reverse time. That makes you feel uncomfortable. You want so badly for this to prove how life started that you are not going to be honest about it.

Scientists can do these experiments and fiddle around with 'how life started' but really all they are proving is how they can create RNA that can reproduce, and then of course id love to see them do this, without being there.

The fact is...that unless the scientists got involved there never would have been this RNA reproducing and so in my mind that simply proves that unless there is something behind the 'testtube' it never was going to happen in the first place.

Proves to me, rather than life started on its own, that life started from a scientist. And secondly...i would not exactly call it 'life' unless i see the DNA 'coming from' the RNA and then, i would have to see how these 'things' survive long enough to produce birds, and dogs, and monkeys...(or whatever you want to call the new creatures) and you know...id just love to see two completely different DNA's come from these RNA chemicals and survive long enough to do it.

 

[Jose Fly]

the fact is you cannot prove that the conditions in the lab is the same as the conditions billions of years ago, because you cant replicate the conditions of the earth billions of years ago, because you cant reverse time.

Right...because you--someone who hasn't read a thing on the subject--say so. It's nice to know we have a renowned expert such as yourself in our midst. How lucky we are!

You want so badly for this to prove how life started that you are not going to be honest about it.

So now I'm being dishonest? You enjoy throwing out accusations, don't you?

Scientists can do these experiments and fiddle around with 'how life started' but really all they are proving is how they can create RNA that can reproduce, and then of course id love to see them do this, without being there.

You're right. Anything and everything done in a lab is bogus...lab experiments tell us absolutely nothing about the real world...because you say so.

The fact is...that unless the scientists got involved there never would have been this RNA reproducing and so in my mind that simply proves that unless there is something behind the 'testtube' it never was going to happen in the first place

The key words there being "in my mind".

i would not exactly call it 'life' unless i see the DNA 'coming from' the RNA and then, i would have to see how these 'things' survive long enough to produce birds, and dogs, and monkeys

So your standard of proof is "Replicate 4 billion years of evolution, but don't do it in a lab or actually do anything at all, because if you do anything, all you've shown is what you can do". Yeah, that's a perfectly reasonable standard.

id just love to see two completely different DNA's come from these RNA chemicals and survive long enough to do it.

It's pretty obvious your only interest in this field of science is to criticize from your armchair, no matter what is done. But, that's the nature of denialism, and as you said earlier, you have no interest or need to actually learn anything about the subject because "it wouldn't make the slightest difference".

 

[Mr Cheese]

It's always interesting to see how people react to something when their mindset going in is, "I really don't want this to be true".

yes...

but true smoo

I just think putting the horse before the cart is silly....

Let science explore RNA... but dont close the book and say we have the final answer
the end.....

Thats firstly, unscientific and secondly dishonest...

shirley?

 

[Heneni]

Right...because you--someone who hasn't read a thing on the subject--say so. It's nice to know we have a renowned expert such as yourself in our midst. How lucky we are!


So now I'm being dishonest? You enjoy throwing out accusations, don't you?


You're right. Anything and everything done in a lab is bogus...lab experiments tell us absolutely nothing about the real world...because you say so.


The key words there being "in my mind".


So your standard of proof is "Replicate 4 billion years of evolution, but don't do it in a lab or actually do anything at all, because if you do anything, all you've shown is what you can do". Yeah, that's a perfectly reasonable standard.


It's pretty obvious your only interest in this field of science is to criticize from your armchair, no matter what is done. But, that's the nature of denialism, and as you said earlier, you have no interest or need to actually learn anything about the subject because "it wouldn't make the slightest difference".

From one of the articles:

Scientists have pinned it down to roughly this:
Some chemical reactions occurred about 4 billion years ago — perhaps in a primordial tidal soup or maybe with help of volcanoes or possibly at the bottom of the sea or between the mica sheets — to create biology.
Now scientists have created something in the lab that is tantalizingly close to what might have happened. It's not life, they stress, but it certainly gives the science community a whole new data set to chew on.

Notice a few key words here?

ROUGHLY
PERHAPS
POSSIBLY
TANTALIZINGLY
ITS NOT LIFE

The article is at least honest in using these words. Words which most people who WANT to make this true....simply overlook:yes:. And before you know it, roughly, perhaps, possibly, tantalizing, and its not life, becomes, exactly, definitely, truth and 'it is life'.

 

[Jose Fly]

I suppose if anyone had used this article to claim "The question of the origin of life on earth has been definitively answered", you would have a point.

But since no one has, your post is a rather irrelevant attempt to argue against a straw man.

 

[Heneni]

It's always interesting to see how people react to something when their mindset going in is, "I really don't want this to be true".

Ah nice one Jose, got yourself 'off' there by a technicality right?

Read your post above. This is what you responded to me. You said i have a mindset that is like this ''i really dont want this to be true''

I never said they didnt do what they did in the lab, so why did you give me the 'i really dont want this to be true'' statement? I never said they didnt do what they did! But WHAT did they do jose? Prove that life came from RNA? Not so, not yet.

In fact i highlighted how ONE of the articles use terminology that appropriately puts the whole idea of life has been created in the lab into the 'theory' box.

And for that..im a strawman...HEHEH

 

[Jose Fly]

Read your post above. This is what you responded to me. You said i have a mindset that is like this ''i really dont want this to be true''

Which was further confirmed when you very clearly stated that you didn't need to read or learn anything about this study or subject in general, because "it wouldn't make the slightest difference".

I never said they didnt do what they did in the lab, so why did you give me the 'i really dont want this to be true'' statement?

Because of your bizarre, rambling post about the article, despite the fact that you hadn't even bothered to read it...

And where are the 'winning out' species now? Alive? Dead? And can you call something a 'specie' unless it has DNA? What they dont tell you is the life-expectancy of the 'winning species'. For this to prove evolution, the lifetime of the RNA has to be long enough to produce DNA within the same lifecycle.

And, to say that this is how life evolved billions of years ago, is rather incorrect. Its how RNA did what it did in a lab, which does not exactly replicate the conditions of the earth billions of years ago, because lets face it, we dont know for a fact,what earth was like billions of years ago.

And unless this RNA can make DNA its hardly proof of evolution.

An objective, informed person would never have put up such a sad post.

 

[Heneni]

Which was further confirmed when you very clearly stated that you didn't need to read or learn anything about this study or subject in general, because "it wouldn't make the slightest difference".


Because of your bizarre, rambling post about the article, despite the fact that you hadn't even bothered to read it...



An objective, informed person would never have put up such a sad post.

An objective person would understand the concept of a 'theory'. Reading twenty books about a theory does not make it a fact. Do you understand that part? Or would i have more 'clout' in your distinguished mind, if i read twenty books of theory hoping that eventually it will transform itself in my mind as a fact?

I'll say it again, you obviously missed that point. I have not seen them do any of what the articles say they did. But, im willing to accept that it has been done. YET im not going to accept that 'this is how life started', because scientifically that is just a theory......

If you cant understand that im afraid ....tjit happens.

Heneni

 

[Jose Fly]

An objective person would understand the concept of a 'theory'. Reading twenty books about a theory does not make it a fact. Do you understand that part? Or would i have more 'clout' in your distinguished mind, if i read twenty books of theory hoping that eventually it will transform itself in my mind as a fact?

I'll say it again, you obviously missed that point. I have not seen them do any of what the articles say they did. But, im willing to accept that it has been done. YET im not going to accept that 'this is how life started', because scientifically that is just a theory......

OMG, that is waaaaaaaay too funny! You chastise me about understanding what "theory" means in science, and then proceed to talk about theories becoming facts!

Heneni, the work these folks did doesn't come anywhere near a scientific theory. They were simply testing one specific hypothesis that extends from the RNA world scenario.

But hey, thanks for the laughs....very entertaining!!

 

[Heneni]

OMG, that is waaaaaaaay too funny! You chastise me about understanding what "theory" means in science, and then proceed to talk about theories becoming facts!

Heneni, the work these folks did doesn't come anywhere near a scientific theory. They were simply testing one specific hypothesis that extends from the RNA world scenario.

But hey, thanks for the laughs....very entertaining!!

Ah come on....so now you are going to play the...' i throw myself on the floor laughing routine' thinking its going to mask the 'i throw my toys out of the cot routine', or 'i just made myself look like an *** routine'. But hey, if you want to use me as your bailout plan....i'll pay the bill.

Thankfully i know what a theory is....which of course you chastised me for by saying '' i dont want it to be true''. If you jose want the theory to be a fact so badly.......then so be it. Very unscientific of you indeed. Dishonesty at its peak. All those papers you've read need to be read again.:sad4:

And now........here comes the credit roll and your drum roll and the advertisement...and im off to take a shower, because i have a theory...when i turn the tap water will come out. Lets see if that's a fact shall we? Unless of course, i believe that if i turn the tap lemonade will come out. NOW THERE is an interesting theory....if only someone can do some lab work to prove that its possible, hey it just might be! But until the lemonade comes out the tap, im not believing it. And until the RNA has a lifecycle long enough to turn RNA into DNA and that new 'thing' survives long enough to make different kinds of DNA's then hey....lemonade out of the tap it will stay.

These experiments done in the lab with RNA can prove only one thing, that RNA can be observed reproducing....the STRETCH comes in when people try to use it as a 'fact' of how life started. Because, sigh.....you cannot reproduce in the lab the conditions of the earth billions of years ago.....im tyred...your not getting me, and i would love to get you, but you are to slippery at this moment. Must be your moon dance around the term 'theory' and 'hypothesis'

Heneni