1. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    12 Mar '05 18:39
    If it is so logical, why hasn't anyone been able to do it yet? Looks like Nature is kicking our a**.
  2. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    13 Mar '05 04:26
    Originally posted by Darfius
    If it is so logical, why hasn't anyone been able to do it yet? Looks like Nature is kicking our a**.
    I am guessing because we haven't been at it for a billion years, or
    because we haven't simulated the original conditions properly or
    any of another million different variables that we can only guess at
    because we weren't there 4 billion years ago.

    Here is an interesting link, Darfius, that might answer some of your
    questions about it.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

    Nemesio
  3. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    13 Mar '05 04:42
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    I am guessing because we haven't been at it for a billion years, or
    because we haven't simulated the original conditions properly or
    any of another million different variables that we can only guess at
    because we weren't there 4 billion years ago.

    Here is an interesting link, Darfius, that might answer some of your
    questions about it.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

    Nemesio
    Very interesting stuff. Thanks for the link.

    However, even if life did randomly and spontaneously generate, why did it feel...er, randomly come upon...the need to replicate? Why didn't life just come to be and die? Replication seems like a goal to me.
  4. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    13 Mar '05 04:58
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    I am guessing because we haven't been at it for a billion years, or
    because we haven't simulated the original conditions properly or
    any of another million different variables that we can only guess at
    because we weren't there 4 billion years ago.

    Here is an interesting link, Darfius, that might answer some of your
    questions about it.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

    Nemesio
    "....Experiments conducted under plausible primitiveearth conditions have resulted in the production of amino acids, large protein-like molecules made from long chains of amino acids, the nucleotide components of DNA, and DNA-like chains of these nucleotides. Many biologically interesting molecules have also been detected by astronomers using radiotelescopes. We can, therefore, explain how the early oxygen-free earth provided a hospitable site for the accumulation of molecules suitable for the construction of living systems. " Excerpt from "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences," National Academy Press, Washington, DC 1984
  5. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    13 Mar '05 04:59
    Originally posted by Darfius
    However, even if life did randomly and spontaneously generate, why did it feel...er, randomly come upon...the need to replicate? Why didn't life just come to be and die? Replication seems like a goal to me.
    I don't know the subject well enough to comment scientifically, so I will pass
    the conch to the person who knows better.

    I will hazzard a semi-educated guess:

    As I said above, we have a few hundred labs with a few thousand pounds of
    chemicals, equipment, lightning machines, &c working on simulating primordial
    environments. When the earth was forming life way back then, there were
    effectively, billions of tons of chemicals with billions of 'real labs' conducting
    the experiment (to use an analogy on the link above, having everyone in
    China fliping coins).

    I would guess that life was created many, many times, but it lacked the 'urge'
    to replicate and died. End of life. However, coincidently, life was created with
    that 'urge' and then began to perpetuate, grow, develop, and evolve.

    This is my guess and I fully admit I don't know the topic terribly well.

    Nemesio
  6. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    13 Mar '05 05:01
    Originally posted by frogstomp
    Many biologically interesting molecules have also been detected by astronomers using radiotelescopes.
    How are molecules detected by astronmers with radioscopes?

    In DuhIamoutofmyleagueship,
    Nemesio
  7. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    13 Mar '05 05:08
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    I don't know the subject well enough to comment scientifically, so I will pass
    the conch to the person who knows better.

    I will hazzard a semi-educated guess:

    As I said above, we have a few hundred labs with a few thousand pounds of
    chemicals, equipment, lightning machines, &c working on simulating primordial
    environments. When the earth was formi ...[text shortened]... evolve.

    This is my guess and I fully admit I don't know the topic terribly well.

    Nemesio
    Then I would have to believe that it only stumbled upon that urge once, correct? Or did natural selection weed out the methods of replication that were...unsavory?
  8. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    13 Mar '05 05:11
    Originally posted by Darfius
    Then I would have to believe that it only stumbled upon that urge once, correct? Or did natural selection weed out the methods of replication that were...unsavory?
    I certainly don't know, and I suspect that no one knows. It's not
    like we have a fossil record for proteins...

    Or do we?

    Dunno.

    We would have to have stumbled on the urge at least once,
    but, who knows, maybe there were 'competing proteins.'

    It's an interesting question that I hope someone else can field.

    Nemesio
  9. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    13 Mar '05 05:14
    Originally posted by Darfius
    Looks like Nature is kicking our a**.
    Personally, I think Nature is far more clever than we are. I mean,
    consider how cool cameras are now. Wouldn't you say our eye is
    about a million times cooler?

    I mean, seriously, whenever I think about what is happening in order
    for my brain to understand what I am looking at, my mouth just drops.
    Light waves go through my pupil, through a lens, to my retina where
    the inverted image of these are interpretted into electrical signals by
    the optic nerve which sends these pulse to a part of my brain which then
    translates them into information which tells me what I can see.

    Honestly, that is major cool! It beats the pants off of a camera any
    day of the week.

    Nemesio
  10. Standard memberNyxie
    The eyes of truth
    elsewhere
    Joined
    26 Apr '04
    Moves
    21784
    13 Mar '05 05:25
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    Personally, I think Nature is far more clever than we are. I mean,
    consider how cool cameras are now. Wouldn't you say our eye is
    about a million times cooler?

    I mean, seriously, whenever I think about what is happening in order
    for my brain to understand what I am looking at, my mouth just drops.
    Light waves go through my pupil, through a lens, t ...[text shortened]... estly, that is major cool! It beats the pants off of a camera any
    day of the week.

    Nemesio
    Ok a good question. The light that goes into your eye, is it all absorbed by the body?

    Nyxie
  11. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    13 Mar '05 05:271 edit
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    Personally, I think Nature is far more clever than we are. I mean,
    consider how cool cameras are now. Wouldn't you say our eye is
    about a million times cooler?

    I mean, seriously, whenever I think about what is happening in order
    f ...[text shortened]... beats the pants off of a camera any
    day of the week.

    Nemesio
    I completely agree about the product. Though I disagree over the producer! 🙂
  12. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    13 Mar '05 05:481 edit
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    How are molecules detected by astronmers with radioscopes?

    In DuhIamoutofmyleagueship,
    Nemesio
    Actually , I really can only guess they use X-ray Spectrography to measure something like fraunhaufer lines of the visible spectrum, but that's just an uninformed guess.
  13. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    13 Mar '05 05:50
    Originally posted by frogstomp
    Actually , I really can only guess the they use X-ray Spectrography to measure something like fraunhaufer lines of the visible spectrum, but that's just an uninformed guess.
    DAMN!

    It was so obvious and I didn't think about it!

    Fraunhaufer lines! Of course!

    DUH! Doesn't everyone know about them?

    Nemesio

    P.S., I don't understand more than 33% of your post
    if you didn't catch that I was being sarcastic. 😉 I'm
    just as much at sea as I was before you posted. 🙁
  14. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    13 Mar '05 09:41
    Originally posted by Nyxie
    Ok a good question. The light that goes into your eye, is it all absorbed by the body?

    Nyxie
    Doubt it. I don't think it's possible for any energy transfer or transformation to be 100% efficient.
  15. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    13 Mar '05 09:52
    Originally posted by Darfius
    Very interesting stuff. Thanks for the link.

    However, even if life did randomly and spontaneously generate, why did it feel...er, randomly come upon...the need to replicate? Why didn't life just come to be and die? Replication seems like a goal to me.
    Well, for one thing, if life did spontaneously come into being and didn't reproduce, you wouldn't know anything about it. As far as I know, cells don't leave fossils. Am I incorrect?

    Anyway, in order to get to the "life" definition, molecules which self replicated would have to have done so with many iterations before life evolved. Therefore there would already have been a long chain of self replication and there's no reason life shouldn't continue the already established pattern.
Back to Top