Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    25 Oct '13 07:07
    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.
  2. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    25 Oct '13 18:20
    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
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    25 Oct '13 19:28 / 1 edit
    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.
  4. 25 Oct '13 19:32 / 1 edit
    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.
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    25 Oct '13 22:38
    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
  6. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    26 Oct '13 02:47 / 1 edit
    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
  7. 26 Oct '13 09:39 / 1 edit
    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.
  8. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    26 Oct '13 18:03 / 3 edits
    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:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_pTKDMj-eo

    Proteins will not form correctly without the correct instructions.

    The Instructor
  9. 26 Oct '13 18:19
    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.
  10. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    26 Oct '13 18:34
    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
  11. 26 Oct '13 19:07 / 1 edit
    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.
  12. 26 Oct '13 19:16 / 6 edits
    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.
  13. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    26 Oct '13 20:46
    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
  14. 26 Oct '13 21:14
    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.
  15. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    26 Oct '13 22:40
    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