1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    25 Feb '13 12:24
    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.
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12728
    25 Feb '13 12:46
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    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.
    We believers in God already know that God started life. Problem solved ages ago. 😏
  3. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    25 Feb '13 13:206 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    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.
    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 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.
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    25 Feb '13 17:50
    Originally posted by humy
    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.
    This goes a long way to disprove the 'all this is highly improbable and therefore only god could create life' BS.
  5. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    25 Feb '13 20:12
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    This goes a long way to disprove the 'all this is highly improbable and therefore only god could create life' BS.
    yes, although that doesn't really need disproving since that does not consist of a logical deduction and misuses the word "therefore".
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12728
    25 Feb '13 21:46
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    This goes a long way to disprove the 'all this is highly improbable and therefore only god could create life' BS.
    Well, it will not prove that God didn't do it, because He did. 😏
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    26 Feb '13 15:31
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Well, it will not prove that God didn't do it, because He did. 😏
    But if we take that science to it's fruition and are able to create life from non-living matter, then would't that put us on a par with your so-called god?
  8. Joined
    03 Feb '13
    Moves
    317
    26 Feb '13 15:39
    Is it just me or are all threads in this forum now to disprove (rant about!?) either creationism or evolution? Kind of sad, really.

    But yeah, cool study.
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    26 Feb '13 15:43
    Originally posted by AnomalousCowturd
    Is it just me or are all threads in this forum now to disprove (rant about!?) either creationism or evolution? Kind of sad, really.

    But yeah, cool study.
    So what is your stance on evolution and such?
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12728
    26 Feb '13 21:45
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    But if we take that science to it's fruition and are able to create life from non-living matter, then would't that put us on a par with your so-called god?
    Not even close. You forgot all about the stars for just one thing. 😏
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    26 Feb '13 21:48
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Not even close. You forgot all about the stars for just one thing. 😏
    So you admit the possibility of mere humans creating new life from non-living matter.
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12728
    26 Feb '13 21:56
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    So you admit the possibility of mere humans creating new life from non-living matter.
    The only way that would be possible, is if you would pray to God for that miracle. 😏
  13. Joined
    03 Feb '13
    Moves
    317
    26 Feb '13 23:46
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    So what is your stance on evolution and such?
    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 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.
  14. Joined
    03 Feb '13
    Moves
    317
    26 Feb '13 23:50
    Perhaps, some might find this amusing.

    http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2703
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12728
    27 Feb '13 02:29
    Originally posted by AnomalousCowturd
    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.
    What 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.
Back to Top