How life might have started on Earth:

http://phys.org/news/2013-10-chemists-life-earth-fluke.html#ajTabs

So much for the creationist argument that random events would never create life from scratch. It is CLEARLY not random but self organized. Another step on the road to completely understanding how life could have started here and then to create life from rocks.

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-chemists-life-earth-fluke.html#ajTabs

So much for the creationist argument that random events would never create life from scratch. It is CLEARLY not random but self organized. Another step on the road to completely understanding how life could have started here and then to create life from rocks.

It is obviously the result of the programming in the DNA. The only mystery they don't address is who did the programming.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is obviously the result of the programming in the DNA. The only mystery they don't address is who did the programming.

The Instructor

You clearly did not read or comprehend the article. There was no DNA, this is before DNA appears, just the conditions needed to get stuff inside a bag that can then allow self directed chemical reactions to create complex molecules that can lead to life.

You might have gotten that if you had actually read the piece.

Just wondered how you like living the life of a troll.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is obviously the result of the programming in the DNA. The only mystery they don't address is who did the programming.

The Idiot

Perhaps you didn't bother to read the link or maybe you are just stupid to understand any of it but it didn't once mention anything that could be explained by "programming in the DNA" and you are just talking total gibberish yet again as usual.

Originally posted by humy
Perhaps you didn't bother to read the link or maybe you are just stupid to understand any of it but it didn't once mention anything that could be explained by "programming in the DNA" and you are just talking total gibberish yet again as usual.

You noticed🙂

Originally posted by sonhouse
You clearly did not read or comprehend the article. There was no DNA, this is before DNA appears, just the conditions needed to get stuff inside a bag that can then allow self directed chemical reactions to create complex molecules that can lead to life.

You might have gotten that if you had actually read the piece.

Just wondered how you like living the life of a troll.

Here is the 5th paragraph which you did not read:

Pasquale Stano at the University of Roma Tre and his colleagues were interested in using this knowledge to probe the origins of life. To make things simple, they chose an assembly that produces proteins. This assembly consists of 83 different molecules including DNA, which was programmed to produce a special green fluorescent protein (GFP) that could be observed under a confocal microscope.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-chemists-life-earth-fluke.html#jCp

They only added the programming for the special green fluorescence so that they could observe what was happening. They said nothing about who did the rest of the programming and how it got there.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Here is the 5th paragraph which you did not read:

Pasquale Stano at the University of Roma Tre and his colleagues were interested in using this knowledge to probe the origins of life. To make things simple, they chose an assembly that produces proteins. This assembly consists of 83 different molecules including [b]DNA, which was programmed to produce ...[text shortened]... They said nothing about who did the rest of the programming and how it got there.

The Idiot[/b]

They only added the programming for the special green fluorescence so that they could observe what was happening.

Exactly. Which confirms what I said.

They said nothing about who did the rest of the programming and how it got there.

That above comment makes no sense whatsoever; the programming in WHICH DNA? (if you don't mean in the DNA, then in what exact? ) . The DNA used in the experiment or the DNA in the first life?
If the DNA in their experiment, there was no “rest” of the “programming” in that DNA.
If DNA in the first life, the first life probably had no DNA but rather most likely a RNA-like substance. In addition, the first DNA to exist would not have had programming for the special green fluorescence used in that experiment so cannot imagine what you are implying by the word “rest” in “the rest of the programming”. And, contrary to your above nonsense comment, there was no “who” involved and the “programming” “got there” by evolution.

Originally posted by humy

They only added the programming for the special green fluorescence so that they could observe what was happening.

Exactly. Which confirms what I said.

They said nothing about who did the rest of the programming and how it got there.

That above comment makes no sense whatsoever; the programming in WHICH DNA? (if you ...[text shortened]... ve nonsense comment, there was no “who” involved and the “programming” “got there” by evolution.

I am referring to the programming in the DNA that produces and forms the proteins. That was what they were trying to see with the fluorescent green, numbnuts. The whole point of the experiment was to determine how the proteins were produced. It is obvious to me that the programming instructions in the DNA has something to do with it.

Maybe this will help:
YouTube

Proteins will not form correctly without the correct instructions.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
The only mystery they don't address is who did the programming.

Please restrict discussion of spirituality matters to the spirituality forum. If you feel this threads topic has a spiritual side to it then feel free to start a thread there with this same topic.
If you wished to discuss science, then you would be welcome here, but it is obvious that you are only interested in trolling with your religion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Please restrict discussion of spirituality matters to the spirituality forum. If you feel this threads topic has a spiritual side to it then feel free to start a thread there with this same topic.
If you wished to discuss science, then you would be welcome here, but it is obvious that you are only interested in trolling with your religion.

So you think asking the questions, who, what, how, where, and when belongs in Spirituality and not in Science? If so, you don't understand what science is all about.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am referring to the programming in the DNA that produces and forms the proteins. That was what they were trying to see with the fluorescent green, numbnuts. The whole point of the experiment was to determine how the proteins were produced. It is obvious to me that the programming instructions in the DNA has something to do with it.

Maybe this will h ...[text shortened]... TKDMj-eo

Proteins will not form correctly without the correct instructions.

The Instructor

The whole point of the experiment was to determine how the proteins were produced.

Actually, that wasn't specifically the objective but rather demonstrating how self-assembly could have happened and they were apparently successful: “ Stano's experiment has shown for the first time that self-assembly into simple cells may be an inevitable physical process “.

Proteins will not form correctly without the correct instructions.

-and evolution creates those instructions just fine; no “who” necessary so you have no argument presented here.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So you think asking the questions, who, what, how, where, and when belongs in Spirituality and not in Science? If so, you don't understand what science is all about.

The Instructor

So you think asking the questions, who, what, how, where, and when belongs in Spirituality and not in Science?

That is CLEARLY not what he implied. You said “The only mystery they don't address is who did the programming. “ and did NOT ask “ what, how, where, and when”.
Why does it have to be a “who” and not just a “what”? To ask “who” did it is equivalent to claiming a person did it (and a baseless and thus clearly false claim in this case ) and, in this case, it is OBVIOUS you are referring to a god by this “who” thus it is OBVIOUS you are just pushing your religious rhetoric here which has no place in science.

Tell us, is it a forbidden question in science to ask "what" did it?
And is it a forbidden answer in science to suggest something natural, not supernatural, did it?
One of the thing that defines science as science is that it leaves stupid superstitious or supernatural answers out of the explanations and relies on just looking at the evidence and applying flawless logic.

Originally posted by humy

So you think asking the questions, who, what, how, where, and when belongs in Spirituality and not in Science?

That is CLEARLY not what he implied. You said “The only mystery they don't address is [b]who did the programming. “ and did NOT ask “ what, how, where, and when”.
Why does it have to be a “who” and not just a “what”? To ask ...[text shortened]... out of the explanations and relies on just looking at the evidence and applying flawless logic.[/b]

Of course we only know of one source of programmed information. That source comes from intelligence. That answers the what question, which we all should know. In a previous post I also asked how the information got there with no reply. But that also brings up the question: Who has the intelligence to program information in DNA to produce life? I made no requirement that the "who" be God or a god. That is only your interpretation. However, I know it can't be EVILUTION.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
So you think asking the questions, who, what, how, where, and when belongs in Spirituality and not in Science?

I think that your sole purpose for posting in this thread was to imply that God did something. That belongs in the spirituality forum.

If so, you don't understand what science is all about.
Actually it is you that doesn't know what science is, but far worse than your ignorance is the fact that you don't want to know, so please go back to the spirituality forum.

The Instructor
Science is done through experiment, not dictated by instructors. Instruction is how religion works and belongs in the spirituality forum.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think that your sole purpose for posting in this thread was to imply that God did something. That belongs in the spirituality forum.

[b]If so, you don't understand what science is all about.
Actually it is you that doesn't know what science is, but far worse than your ignorance is the fact that you don't want to know, so please go back to the sp ...[text shortened]... ictated by instructors. Instruction is how religion works and belongs in the spirituality forum.[/b]

That is your jejune opinion.

The Instructor