Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab

livescience.com ^ | January 11, 2009 | Robert Roy Britt

[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.

[freedumb2003]

So, please, which FReepers were banned for merely supporting evolution and why then, weren’t more banned, and why were you allowed back if that’s the criteria.

Me. I believe the last post was accusing chesterbrew dude of being sophomoric in his flights of fancy in a serious debate -- hardly an insult, more a categorization of his nonsense. The rest of my posts were in support of the understanding of evolution, which is why I and many like me were banned.

But I now approach things a little differently and attempt to drop the sarcasm and keep to the issues.

I haven't been perfect, but I am trying.

[freedumb2003]

I didn't see that in the article. I only saw that they "synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely."

What exactly were the conditions 4billion years ago and what were the conditions in this experiment?

It is conjecture about how long ago the actual spark of life happened. I was addressing the suggestion that we can't "know" what happened back then but we can simulate conditions -- which does NOT mean that the fact we simulated those conditions means an intelligent being created them. In that sense, I am correct.

[freedumb2003]

I didn't see that in the article. I only saw that they "synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely."

What exactly were the conditions 4billion years ago and what were the conditions in this experiment?

It is hypothetical and still being worked on (multidisciplinarily) about how long ago the actual spark of life happened. I was addressing the suggestion that we can't "know" what happened back then but we can simulate conditions -- which does NOT mean that the fact we simulated those conditions means an intelligent being created them. In that sense, I am correct.

[freedumb2003]

Please accept the second post - “conjecture” certainly is NOT the word I was looking for and I thought I caught it in time for the edit.

[freedumb2003]

That would be an extremely safe bet.

Actually, most of them are scientists. I am one of the few who is not a scientist by profession.

Most scientists are honest enough to admit that there is indeed a line between what is know and what is not know; what is science and what is not science; what can be tested and what cannot be tested.

Are you suggesting that TTOE is not accepted by scientists?

They won't stoop to levying personal attacks in order to defend their faith, and they won't call their faith "science".

I am not quite sure where you are going here. As far as personal attacks, we have some great examples on this very thread of which "side" used personal attacks and insults as their mode of debate. In fact, if I read your last comment correctly, that is also an attempt to insult people who understand TTOE.

But I shant comment on the CREVO wars any more. It was the past. I will ask that people be civil and I promise to do the same.

[Sopater]

I was addressing the suggestion that we can't "know" what happened back then but we can simulate conditions -- which does NOT mean that the fact we simulated those conditions means an intelligent being created them. In that sense, I am correct.

You continue to claim that "we simulated those conditions" as if it were a fact, but the article says nothing about simulating any conditions. Your statement is true, but meaningless.

[freedumb2003]

You continue to claim that "we simulated those conditions" as if it were a fact, but the article says nothing about simulating any conditions. Your statement is true, but meaningless.

It is a conclusion to address the poster. Please re-read my previous response to you on what I was speaking to.

My conclusion is accurate for the context.

[Sopater]

Are you suggesting that TTOE is not accepted by scientists?

Not at all. I'm suggesting that it is accepted on faith based on their best interpretation of the evidence. I didn't intend to insult people who understand TTOE, only point out that it is accepted on faith since it has not been observed. You seem to be implying that those who don't accept it don't understand it. I don't think that that is true at all.

[freedumb2003]

Not at all. I'm suggesting that it is accepted on faith based on their best interpretation of the evidence.

Evolution has been observed and it has progressed as the Theory suggests. You sort of move the discussion into the philosophical, as all knowledge is belief to one degree or another. TToE is not monolithic but multidisciplinary -- we have facts supporting other facts and so on, all of which support each other and create a consistent picture (although the details of that picture constantly change as new data are found). TToE meets all criteria of scientific theories. That is no more "faith" than geology is "faith" or studies of TTOG (Gravity) are "faith."

I didn't intend to insult people who understand TTOE, only point out that it is accepted on faith since it has not been observed. You seem to be implying that those who don't accept it don't understand it. I don't think that that is true at all.

I am afraid it is. To reject TToE because one does not like its conclusions is the same as rejecting physics because a close relative fell off a building.

But I am pleased that you meant no offense and accept your argument in the spirit intended.

[Sopater]

TToE is not monolithic but multidisciplinary -- we have facts supporting other facts and so on, all of which support each other and create a consistent picture (although the details of that picture constantly change as new data are found).

Certainly, but wouldn't be nice to find just one piece of evidence that finally put the debate to rest? ;-)

To reject TToE because one does not like its conclusions is the same as rejecting physics because a close relative fell off a building.

That's pretty good. The same could be said about accepting TTOE despite the gaping holes simply because one does not like the alternative.

God bless.

[dan1123]

To reject TToE because one does not like its conclusions is the same as rejecting physics because a close relative fell off a building.

Wow. A remark with no logical foundation. Evolution has zero predictive power, so its usefulness to science is the same. The sole usefulness of evolution is in evangelizing atheism to the religious.

[Sopater]

The sole usefulness of evolution is in evangelizing atheism to the religious.

...and to the children.

[Sopater]

To reject TToE because one does not like its conclusions is the same as rejecting physics because a close relative fell off a building.

Actually, I was raised on a secular, public education. Did well in school and went to a state university for a B.S. degree. Took a biomedical engineering program which included organic chemistry, mammalian physiology and biology. I was so excited to learn how life began and evolved on the earth. I didn't even know that there was a debate, only that there were questions. I remember how disappointed I was to learn that we were no closer to determining how life began on this planet than we were 50 years earlier when Stanley Miller conducted his famous experiment. I understood why speculation was presented as fact. It was because it was the best explanaition that science had. However, even I could see that science fell woefully short of being able to demonstrate either the origin of life or the evolution of species. I accepted it as fact since there were no other alternatives, but was certainly not impressed with the progress that had been made.

I would go so far as to say that those who accept TTOE as fact are the ones who don't understand it, because those who do understand it see it's flaws.

[freedumb2003]

Wow. A remark with no logical foundation. Evolution has zero predictive power, so its usefulness to science is the same. The sole usefulness of evolution is in evangelizing atheism to the religious.

Understanding TToE has led to many, perhaps most, major modern drugs. By understanding how things like people and viruses adapt is how these discoveries are made.

The percentage of scientists who understand TTOE and are also Christians or Jews is pretty much the same as in the non-scientific population.

And I am very much a Christian.

Your rhetoric, although strong, is without support.

[freedumb2003]

However, even I could see that science fell woefully short of being able to demonstrate either the origin of life or the evolution of species. I accepted it as fact since there were no other alternatives, but was certainly not impressed with the progress that had been made.

Then you know that Abiogenesis and TToE are independent of one another. And that the former is a lot more elusive, since we don't have the billions of artifacts as we do with the latter.

I would go so far as to say that those who accept TTOE as fact are the ones who don't understand it, because those who do understand it see it's flaws.

If you know of any flaws, please feel free to post them. As a GENERAL SCIENTIFIC THEORY, TToE holds together better than almost any other scientific theory. There certainly has been no scientific theory alternative even proposed -- no Einsteinian to the Newtonian.

Millions of scientists across the world understand and use TToE constantly. Many attempt to widen its picture by puncturing details, but none have ever been able to come up with a scientific alternative.

[freedumb2003]

That's pretty good. The same could be said about accepting TTOE despite the gaping holes simply because one does not like the alternative.

That scientific alternative being...?

[freedumb2003]

...and to the children.

No more than chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy (how can there be planets and stars billions of miles away if we have never seen them with our own eyes?), etc.

TToE is no more "atheistic" than any other science that keeps itself in the physical realm.

[metmom]

I am afraid it is. To reject the ToE because one does not like its conclusions is the same as rejecting physics because a close relative fell off a building.

Not exactly. I'm with sopater on this one. The thought that one doesn't accept the ToE is because of a lack of understanding of it doesn't wash.

I understand where scientists are coming from with it, I understand how they think that the evidence supports it, I just don't agree with their conclusions.

It's just too improbable that it could have happened without any intelligent impetus. I also do not see how science has disproved the creation of the world and life by God.

And there is the faith factor. I've found God reliable in so many areas that to trust Him in an area where there is controversy, is not a big stretch.

[freedumb2003]

I understand where scientists are coming from with it, I understand how they think that the evidence supports it, I just don't agree with their conclusions.

I mean this seriously, mm -- what is your conclusion of 3VL vs 2VL in the Relational Model? Date or Codd? And what of the 0-tuple and 0-attribute relations? And relvars versus relations as a connotation?

I am not wising off -- I am asking if you have the background to discuss these subjects. And I ask that you answer my simple questions about TRM before proceeding to a more complex subject such as TToE (which, I remind you, is not dependent on abiogenesis).

[freedumb2003]

I also do not see how science has disproved the creation of the world and life by God.

It has never done so, nor shall it attempt to do disprove these. I am 100% sure God created this wonderful Universe and the more we learn the more in wonder I am at His might -- and love.