Posted on 01/12/2009 7:23:26 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Quite frankly I never expected realistically to see any research that could settle the question in my lifetime.
But today I am wondering. What if, within the next 20 years we find life on Mars that has a completely different genetic code.
Any thoughts?
Are you serious/ He thinks clay crystals were hte first primitive ‘life replicators’? He seems to be arguing that soemthign just barely able ot keep itself alive, somethign so simple that it just barely ‘squeeked by’, hung aroudn self replicating until info just somehow arose?
cairns Argues that life could not have happened in soem primordial soup, but hten goes on to state it arose in clay crystals, and we’re to conclude that Cairns gave a serious hypothesis abotu hte rise of metainfo?
“”Cairns-Smith, long before the argument became popular, emphasized how
improbable it is that a molecule as high tech as RNA could have appeared de
novo on the primitive Earth. He proposed that the first form of life was a
self-replicating clay. He suggested that the synthesis of organic molecules
became part of the competitive strategy of the clay world and that the
inorganic genome was taken over by one of its organic creations.
Cairns-Smith postulate of an inorganic life form has failed to gather any
experimental support. The idea lives on in the limbo of uninvestigated
hypotheses.” (Leslie E. Orgel, The Origin of Life - A Review of Facts and
Speculations, Trends in Biochemical Sciences, vol 23, No 12, December 1998)”
Again though, it seems that you think that this paper we’re discussing mustn’t be important ‘because people might have thought about it earlier in some form or anther’? How would that fact undermine the importance of what’s being discussed in this thread and paper? Why would you even bring something liek that up? Does it refute the idea that hwat is discussed i nthis paper might be a big deal for Macroevolution? Not sure why you brought this up?
Not my problem.
If you are worried about FR becoming flooded with Creationists, you need to think again! Perhaps you would like to read what FR's founder Jim Robinson had to say on Creation/Evolution.
So.
Ben Stein is likewise a Creationist and produced a movie proclaiming so for erroneous reasons which have been disproven time after time, here and elsewhere. Moreover, he drew erroneous conclusions (which I've illustrated in previous posts in this forum). However, producing a movie or owning a website doesn't make either of them right. Once again personally, I find it incomprehensible that both their Faiths are so weak as to be so disturbed by a Fact.
Nonetheless globally, to take Conservatism down this path marginalizes it (and them) at best. I'm trying to save them from themselves.
If you don't think FR is the place for Creationists, perhaps you should find some other forum.
Wait a minute! I thought you just said this was Jim Robinson's website or do you pretend to speak for him?
Kinda pretentious dontchathink.
[[Not my problem.]]
Not your problem? you’re the oen that brought it up in the first place- What are you tryign to infer? That this paper is worthless becasuse someone made a bunch of assumptions about clay in the past & assumptions abotu how info ‘could have’ arisen? The fact is, Cairns didn’t as far as I know, concider the necessary 5 points of life- he just made assumptions about one level- suggesting thta it coudl transfer to hte next- The paper we’re discussing takes it to the IC 5 points of life
The hypothesis:
[[”Cycles of wetting and drying produced by the ocean tides cause stress in the clay that translated into energy. These cycles can link molecules of amino acids together by transferring energy .... The ions in clay act as catalysts to speed up chemical reactions ... when in the presence of clays some organic molecules can also perform functions like enzymes”7]]
http://www.studytoanswer.net/origins/abiogenesis.html
Swell- whatever, but how does that even remotely explain anythign liek the paper we’re discussing? Nor does his book I think cover the chemical purity discussed- correct me if I’m wrong
“While the clay particles do have an organisation from their crystal structures, this organisation is very simple. Meanwhile, even the simplest life form, and the biochemical molecules which enable this life to be life, are far more complex. Even the most basic of biochemical species which would be needed to lead up to the chemical evolution of life are far too complex to have been directed by a simple crystalline structure.”
Does Cairns address this in his book?
[[But today I am wondering. What if, within the next 20 years we find life on Mars that has a completely different genetic code.
Any thoughts?]]
wouldn’t be a problem at all-
That would be because he is more concerned with facts on the ground than with mental masturbation.
There's lots of productive research along these lines. Chemists aren't much interested in counting the reasons something can't be done.
Yeah, and my faith in conservatism is so weak I ban every liberal DU poster that signs up.
Oh, wait a minute. It’s not because of any lack of faith in conservatism, we zot DU posters simply because we don’t want our pages filled with repugnant leftist propaganda from obnoxious liberal trolls.
Somehow I expected more from you.
I would say one side is trying to come up with coherent explanations that fit together and take all known facts into account. I'll take your word for what your side is doing.
Likewise, I’m sure.
What’d you expect from a bitter redneck clinging to his religion and guns?
You don’t have to cling.
A savior's labors are seldom appreciated in his lifetime.
[[That would be because he is more concerned with facts on the ground]]
Correction- He’s more concerned with throwing God otu of the equation by inferring Nature-did-it than he is about looking at hte actual scientific facts that refute what he hypothesises
[[There’s lots of productive research along these lines.]]
Really? And they are comign up with? Nothing but assumptions that violate laws.
[[Chemists aren’t much interested in counting the reasons something can’t be done.]]
Apparently- too bad- objective science demands these be taken into concideration- infact ceded to when it becoems clear that it can’t be done.
Jim, your site is becoming a haven for an increasingly vociferous band of anti-science kooks. To the extent that your site is a voice of conservatism, this casts all of conservatism, and the Republican party, in an extremely bad light.
There was a time when scientists were proud to be members here. Many have been banned, and even more have left in disgust at the treatment accorded them. The moderation is extremely one-sided now; what will get a pro-science poster banned is lauded when posted by the anti-science crowd. It is common to see the anti-science crowd harass a pro-science poster until he breaks and utters an obscenity--then he is banned for life.
"Religion and guns" is not the issue, as most scientists are religious, and many are pro-gun.
The issue is a narrow fundamentalist brand of religion that is trying to become the face of the conservative movement. This site is increasingly influenced by this narrow movement such that scientists and a lot of conservatives are leaving in droves. I'm amazed that I have survived here this long--and I worked for Reagan in 1966, when most other posters here weren't even born!
Yet because I spent six years in graduate school studying evolution and related subjects, and post pro-science comments, I am labeled an "evo-cultist," and "evo-Nazi," and worse, and compared to Hitler and Stalin and communists--with the apparent approval of the moderators.
Jim, your site is headed for true kookdom, headed for the fringe. When folks like Cottshop become the face of science on your site, and folks like Radio Astronomer, a genuine conservative scientist, are banned, you have irreparably left the mainstream. I don't think that's a good way to win elections.
Whatever.
From a statement I posted a long time ago on our front page. I agree this site is probably too kooky for a whole lot of people, but we're not changing it. If you can't handle traditional American pro-Life, pro-God, pro-Liberty conservatism, you can always remove our bookmark from your list.
[[The moderation is extremely one-sided now; what will get a pro-science poster banned is lauded when posted by the anti-science crowd. It is common to see the anti-science crowd harass a pro-science poster until he breaks and utters an obscenity—then he is banned for life.]]
You know Coyoteman- this is a load of crap- There are MANY peopel that beleive in TOE here- and they get along just fine because they don’t engage in the childish rhettotic liek you just posted- You sir are cosntantly deriding Creationists and ID folks as being ‘antiscience’ DESPITE the fact that we’ve been presentign the SCIENCE that refutes the silyl claims you keep making- and apparently, that doesn’t sit well with you or others of your ilk who ‘left in disgust’- well too bad- You sir are one of hte worst here- yet one of hte first to jump up and down screaming about being ‘picked on’
IF you’d simply present your opinions WITHOUT CONSTATLY Belittling others, without CONSTANTLY deriding them, and putting htem down- You’d be taken much more seriously, and you’d be able to engage in civil discussions JUST LIKE ALL the other TOE supporters enjoy here!
Go cry me a river- Cripes!
[[Yet because I spent six years in graduate school studying evolution and related subjects, and post pro-science comments, I am labeled an “evo-cultist,” and “evo-Nazi,” and worse, and compared to Hitler and Stalin and communists—with the apparent approval of the moderators.]]
NO SIR! You are derided by others because you are snide, rude, and uncivil toweard them first! Anyoen with half an iota of common sense can go through your posts and discover exactly what I am talking about and see for themselves! Don’t you accuse others of what you yourself are guilty of first sir!
If other scientists want to ‘leave in disgust’ then it is simpyl because they can’t handle havign hteir scientific claism exposed to hte public, and it’s because they don’t like claiming somethign and hten gettign challenged on it! Plain nd simple!
[[When folks like Cottshop become the face of science on your site,]]
Gee- thanks- but htere are people far more deserving of that title than myself- I only call the facts liek I see them- and apparnetly that doesn’t sit well with you
We’ve had a VERY civil discussion here for nearly 1000 posts now, UNTIL you and Dr.Mike showed up with your petty claims, false accusations, and irrelevent spam tryuing to derail this htread- and you are hte one crying about not being treatedright? The fact is you’re upset abotu not beign able to post TOE propoganda wihtout havign to face challenges to it, and when challenged, you break into your usual antiChristian crap routine time and itme again- and when htat doesn’t work, you appeal to hte owner with yet more false claims and petty false insults about Christian science?
My hearts bleeds for you.
If the genetic code is widely different, it'll be considered evidence that a Creator didn't do it cause life adapted to fit the different environment.
If it's not wildly different, then it'll be considered more supporting evidence that the common aspects of life can easily arise in other environments.
It'll be *Heads I win, tails you lose*.
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.