How life could 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.

I 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.

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 organized. It is probably not un-intelligently self organized.

It is intelligently organized, if organized.

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.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Louis Pasteur proved like ages ago that you cannot get life from a sterile environment.

No, he did not. You and RJ seem to love this lie.
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.

Originally posted by sonship
Don't tell sonhouse that. He wants to be certain no matter what.

Why do you say that?

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!"

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why do you say that?

Why do you ask that ?

Originally posted by sonship

While [b]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.

[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.

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.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So how did God do it? Explain away.

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.

Originally posted by sonship
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.

How can it be a religious belief? It's making no claim to the supernatural or any deity.

Originally posted by sonship
Why do you ask that ?

Because I was unable to read Sonhouse's mind that accurately so I wondered how you performed the feat.

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.

Swing and a miss.

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...

Originally posted by sonship
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.

Anything 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.
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.