14 Nov 13
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.
14 Nov 13
Originally posted by sonhouseI was going to say that this belongs in science, then i realised that materialists have their own creation myths and it rightly belongs in spirituality. Louis Pasteur proved like ages ago that you cannot get life from a sterile environment.
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.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
14 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseIt is organized. It is probably not un-intelligently self organized.
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 intelligently organized, if organized.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
14 Nov 13
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.
While we may never be certain which chemicals existed on prebiotic Earth, we can study the biomolecules we have today to give us clues about what happened three billion years ago.
(my bolding)
Don't tell sonhouse that. He wants to be certain no matter what.
This form of self-organisation is remarkable, and figuring out how it happens may hold the key to understanding life on earth formed and perhaps how it might form on other planets.
It may !! Then again, it may not.
Perhaps a key to life on planet ??? ... but perhaps not.
Regardless of the limitations, Stano's experiment has shown for the first time that self-assembly into simple cells may be an inevitable physical process. Finding out how exactly this self-assembly happens will mean taking a big step towards understanding how life was formed.
Interesting. Lots of very interesting research out there. Let them continue.
Please give sonhouse SOMETHING to comfort himself with that there is no authority beyond his own ego. He has an itch he cannot seem to scratch hard enough.
14 Nov 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, he did not. You and RJ seem to love this lie.
Louis Pasteur proved like ages ago that you cannot get life from a sterile environment.
The claim is as stupid as someone going to a beach in Scotland, observing the lack of Zebras, and then announcing that they have proved that you can't find Zebras on beaches.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
14 Nov 13
Stano reports in the journal Angewandte Chemie that many of these liposomes trapped some molecules of the assembly. But remarkably, five in every 1,000 such liposomes had all 83 of the molecules needed to produce a protein. These liposomes produced large amount of GFP and glowed green under a microscope.
Computer calculations reveal that even by chance, five liposomes in 1,000 could not have trapped all 83 molecules of the assembly. Their calculated probability for even one such liposome to form is essentially zero. The fact that any such liposomes formed and that GFP was produced means something quite unique is happening.
Stano and his colleagues do not yet understand why this happened. It may yet be a random process that a better statistical model will explain. It may be that these particular molecules are suited to this kind of self-organisation because they are already highly evolved. An important next step is to see if similar, but less complex, molecules are also capable of this feat.
Fascinating. One important step and only about 100 trillion steps to go.
Unintelligent self assembly of life from the prebiotic imaterial to "lions and tigers and bears, O My!"
14 Nov 13
Originally posted by sonshipWhile [b]we may never be certainwhich chemicals existed on prebiotic Earth, we can study the biomolecules we have today to give us clues about what happened three billion years ago.
(my bolding)
Don't tell sonhouse that. He wants to be certain no matter what.
[quote] This form of self-organisation is remarkable, and figuring o ...[text shortened]... there is no authority beyond his own ego. He has an itch he cannot seem to scratch hard enough.[/b]So how did God do it? Explain away.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
14 Nov 13
The 1987 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was given to chemists for showing how complex molecules can perform very precise functions. One of the behaviours of these molecules is called self-organisation, where different chemicals come together because of the many forces acting on them and become a molecular machine capable of even more complex tasks. Each living cell is full of these molecular machines.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-chemists-life-earth-fluke.html#jCp
But if Mike Behe says the same thing - "Each living cell is full of these molecular machines" that are capable of ... more complex tasks, well that's to be suspicioned. He's into intelligent design.
If Stephen Meyer says it, it is to be suspicioned. He's into intelligent design.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
14 Nov 13
Originally posted by Proper KnobI don't know. Let me tell you what I know.
So how did God do it? Explain away.
So much for the creationist argument that random events would never create life from scratch.
I know that the chance of random events creating life from scratch and continuing until we see the present biosphere, probably is somebody's religious belief.
14 Nov 13
Originally posted by sonshipHow can it be a religious belief? It's making no claim to the supernatural or any deity.
I don't know. Let me tell you what I know.
So much for the creationist argument that random events would never create life from scratch.
I know that the chance of random events creating life from scratch and continuing until we see the present biosphere, probably is somebody's religious belief.
14 Nov 13
Originally posted by sonhouseSwing and a miss.
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.
The article you cite is another one of the straw-graspings we've seen time after time: the supposed definitive proof of randomly-inspired biogenesis. Hogwash.
In these experiments, one of the controls is always the experimenter--- in this case, the chemists. For this particular set-up (get it? nothing random about a set-up, is there?), the chemists controlled both the mix and the additive/dilution in order to achieve their desired results.
On top of this, in an effort to validate their findings, they call upon computer-generated statistical probabilities to seal such results as "unique" since the chance factor is reduced to nearly zero. Gee. That argument sounds so distinctly familiar, doesn't it?
Well, I suppose for the faithful this becomes another cornerstone to their belief system, regardless of the fact that it does nothing more than solidify the shakiness of the whole idea...
14 Nov 13
Originally posted by sonshipAnything anyone says should be 'suspicioned'. The great thing about the scientific process is we don't simply take peoples word for it, we check it.
But if Mike Behe says the same thing - "Each living cell is full of these molecular machines" that are capable of ... more complex tasks, well that's to be suspicioned. He's into intelligent design.
When I criticize Behe, I do so on logical and evidential grounds. The fact that he is into intelligent design should not affect whether or not my criticism is valid.
You on the other hand are well known for supporting claims of people that are into intelligent design even when you don't understand the claims in question and even after the claims are shown to be false.