Posted on 01/11/2009 2:16:04 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
One of life's greatest mysteries is how it began. 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.
The researchers, at the Scripps Research Institute, created molecules that self-replicate and even evolve and compete to win or lose. If that sounds exactly like life, read on to learn the controversial and thin distinction.
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
I.L. Cohen, Researcher and Mathematician
Member NY Academy of Sciences
Officer of the Archaeological Inst. of America
Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities
New Research Publications, 1984, p. 4
Now if they left some primordial soup on the counter and it sprang to life, that would be a different story.
So then, these self-replicating molecules were created by the intellegent designers at the Scripps Research Institute.
Uh, no. They simulated conditions from 4 billion years ago. To simulate requires intelligence. It is like saying that it requires intelligence to demonstrate gravity, since an intelligent entity dropped a ball.
Now if they left some primordial soup on the counter and it sprang to life, that would be a different story.
So to prove geological epochs, they need to build a planet amnd observe it for a few billion years?
Not really, if they demonstrate, in addition, that the chemical reactions that occurred in the lab occur in nature then it proves the exact opposite.
Analogously, if a scientist creates lightning in a lab, as long as he shows the same conditions occur in the atmosphere he has demonstrated that lightning occurs naturally, as opposed to say Zeus shooting down bolts of electricity to the earth.
And the Democrats will be right there to register it to vote.
No - we simply ask Slartibartfast how old the Earth is.
There's no reason life has to jump through the DNA hoops and learn how to behave like a trained puppy when it's possible that it's just something that takes advantage of water.
That would explain fjords.
Rad the article. They took existing RNA.
Nucleic acids spontaneously developing has been compared to having a billion billion billion billion chimps pounding for a billion billon billion billion years, under the assertion that one would eventually compose the works of Shakespeare.
This doesn’t change that problem (unless they’ve held back some big results, but these Deus-ex-sludge types seem unlikely to do that), nor does it solve the problem of where did all those typewriters come from. But it does, intriguingly, show that Chimps like to type random keys on a typewriter.
INTREP - Proves nothing
No kidding. Look at how much thought, effort, time and money has been spent by us to create life as we know it. All of this has INTELLIGENCE behind it. Not as great as God’s but it still is a level of intelligence. It just doesn’t happen on its own.
Thank you scientists for proving our point.
Scientists try to be like God and create life, but fail.
That's better.
My argument was that the fact an intelligent entity did the experiment does not mean intelligence is part of the process. But you have to walk before your run -- study of abiogenesis is probably one of the most difficult. Until you build a wall tall enough to see over the next hill, you don't know what is waiting there. The numbers game is an old saw tossed out by people who think they see some sort of help for ID-type arguments. The Universe is probably as stochastic as the earth.
This doesn’t change that problem
Nor does it undermine the findings.
Feel free to read my post 5 — this does nothing to help ID proponents.
Why is trying to learn how the world works equated to trying to be like God?
Consciousness?
Not really. No scientist can show anywhere in nature the exact conditions to make this happen. They can’t find any now, nor would they be able to. You’re assuming that it must have occurred via the processes they used in the lab, somewhere in nature, but since they will never find those conditions today (unlike your lighting example) then it will remain unproven.
And it still shows that intelligence is required to generate the conditions.
Where did they get the RNA?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.