25 Feb 13
Originally posted by sonhouseWe believers in God already know that God started life. Problem solved ages ago. 😏
http://scitechdaily.com/proto-rna-bases-assemble-in-water-hint-at-origins-of-life/
They are getting closer to answering the question of how life got started. It is not so improbable as creationists like to think.
25 Feb 13
6 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseThat is interesting research. I think personally think this new theory should be called very simply the "“proto-RNA theory" -who agrees?
http://scitechdaily.com/proto-rna-bases-assemble-in-water-hint-at-origins-of-life/
They are getting closer to answering the question of how life got started. It is not so improbable as creationists like to think.
the link says:
"the Georgia Tech group was able to achieve efficient, highly ordered self-assembly in water with small molecules that are similar to the bases of RNA. These “proto-RNA bases” spontaneously assemble into gene-length linear stacks, suggesting that the genes of life could have gotten started from these or similar molecules. "
so clearly this isn't just pure theorizing but they have got actual experimental evidence proving that what the theory says happened can definitely physically happen. Although this obviously falls short of proving this did happen exactly this way, I am still very impressed!
I would say this proto-RNA theory is probably correct. I think it also gives greater credence to the idea that, given the right conditions including the presence of liquid water and a reducing atmosphere, the probability of abiogenesis occurring somewhere on a planet with those conditions is quite high.
25 Feb 13
Originally posted by humyThis goes a long way to disprove the 'all this is highly improbable and therefore only god could create life' BS.
That is interesting research. I think personally think this new theory should be called very simply the "“proto-RNA theory" -who agrees?
the link says:
"the Georgia Tech group was able to achieve efficient, highly ordered self-assembly in water with small molecules that are similar to the bases of RNA. These “proto-RNA bases” spontaneously assemble into ...[text shortened]... ability of abiogenesis occurring somewhere on a planet with those conditions is quite high.
25 Feb 13
Originally posted by sonhouseyes, although that doesn't really need disproving since that does not consist of a logical deduction and misuses the word "therefore".
This goes a long way to disprove the 'all this is highly improbable and therefore only god could create life' BS.
26 Feb 13
Originally posted by sonhouseI like evolution. It makes sense. Survival of the fittest and all that. If DNA works the way it we think it does, then it makes sense that the most adaptive specimens of a certain species survive and pass their above average traits on to the next generation. In a long enough timeframe, this results in a noticeable change in this species.
So what is your stance on evolution and such?
What I don't understand, is why some creationists (while some of them are nice people that you can have quite an interesting discussion with, but, from my experience anyway, they tend to be outnumbered by crazy fanatics) tend to think that evolution explains the origin of life whereas it doesn't and, crudely speaking, it simply tells you that lifeforms change over time to adapt to the environment.
Anyway, I am no biologist (electrical engineering, hell yeah!) so this is merely a perspective that seems to make sense to me and I don't claim it to be the right one.
27 Feb 13
Originally posted by AnomalousCowturdWhat you are describing is adaptation and not evil-lution. Evil-lution says an ape changed into a man by adaptation and natural selection. That is what we creationists Christians object to because it contradict the word of God that says God made man a separate kind, male and female.
I like evolution. It makes sense. Survival of the fittest and all that. If DNA works the way it we think it does, then it makes sense that the most adaptive specimens of a certain species survive and pass their above average traits on to the next generation. In a long enough timeframe, this results in a noticeable change in this species.
What I d ...[text shortened]... merely a perspective that seems to make sense to me and I don't claim it to be the right one.