In follow-up work to Miller and Urey’s groundbreaking study look at the synthesis of organic compounds in a primordial environment, it was shown that RNA monomeric bases could form under conditions similar to those of a prehistoric Earth. More recent work has shown how such individual bases, floating in a water environment, could link together into chains. […] A critical question that remained unanswered, though, was how the ancient RNA enzymes could survive.
Now researchers at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in the United Kingdom think they have cracked that puzzle. By placing RNA inside liquid pockets of water encased inside cooling ice, they found that RNA enzymes could function and at the same time escape degradation.
[…]
Thus the origin of life on Earth might not have been in a deep-sea vent or open ocean, but in a cold muddy puddle in the icy north or south, which contained a mix of water and organic byproducts of freed carbon from the Earth’s crust.
[…]
Over time this life form could have built up an arsenal of useful chemicals — evolution at its most basic microscopic form. The most critical developments would have been the creation of a protective phospholipid bilayer, the creation of protein enzymes to offer faster catalysis, and last, but not least, the switch to the more chemically stable DNA. Once a self-replicating RNA-lifeform gained these adaptations, it would at last have been ready to venture into warmer climates and begin to survive and reproduce, capturing the sun’s power to fix energy in carbon-based molecules.From there a long evolutionary road lay ahead, eventually reaching man and our zoological peers in the modern world.
Looks like no ‘creator’ needed after all. Just chemical reactions, evolution and vast, hard for humans to comprehend stretches of time. Parallels Stephen Hawking’s book that shows one wasn’t needed to have created the universe either.
@ #116 I believe the crux of your argument is that if there exists no time or space as we know it then nothing must exist. If you can tear yourself away from the fact that you have to be right, then you may consider the fact that there may be existence independent of what we perceive as time and space.
Think of it this way,,,, way back when,, someone was likely trying to explain that air might not just be air, that maybe it’s made up of many things like oxygen and nitrogen and stuff. The open mind likely told that person that they may be correct, but like me, he probably suspected they were wrong.
A real comment for a change rather just frothing Alfred on to 190 post run. Endlessly entertaining.
In Hawking and Mlodinow’s book The Grand Design they come out swinging not just at the necessity of God but they say “philosophy is dead” and science, and especially physics, has taken over. And you know what? They are mostly right (aesthetics and ethics aren’t quite there yet).
What’s pissing religious types off is that science (physics, bio, chem) has an increasingly interesting and credible story to tell on who we are, how we got here, and whether we have free will or not.
In the absence of tools and education for studying the universe human kind made up stories to satisfy our innate curiosity. We’re monkeys, we can’t help it. Faith is just a part of that curiosity and it needs to be satisfied in some way. In the vacuum of knowledge, religion filled the gaps. This explains why religions dislike, and even discourage, the teaching of science. You’re basically that religion is “wronger” and science is “righter”.
It’s rather ironic. Scientific curiosity is just the natural evolution beyond religion.
#192 Snort. By that logic Stieg Larsson is semi-divine. Do the math, don’t forget to carry the remainder.
you people are still writing about this?
Well Al appears to be, but you know what they say opinions are like Alfreds everbody’s got one.
Again, read the book, you lazy bugger. Hawking answers the question. Just like Darwin answered the question.
BTW, calling a man crippled by a horrible disease a “dork” is somewhat unchristian, don’t you think?
# 195 Pope Alfred
“Why not be intellectually honest and agree its absurd the human eye is a product of evolution.”
The answer to that is that, by being intellectually honest, I find it perfectly plausible that the human eye is a product of evolution.
“You can carry that honesty forward and do yourself a world of good by also repenting of your bad ways, and believing Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”
You know perfectly well that this has nothing to do with honesty but rather of belief – your belief that is. I see no reason why it should do me a world of good to believe in someone whose existence is not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
“The Christ experience is certainly real, millions of changed lives can’t be wrong.”
The Mohamed experience is certainly real, millions of changed lives can’t be wrong.
@202:
Yes there is, and Alfred, you’re exceeding your quota.
tcc3, it looks like he runs out of steam around 200. 😉
Time for a rather nice IPA…
Good night folks. Time for Alfred to go bye-byes.
At least you’ve learned to use the word “insult” instead of the prissy, right wing “ad hominem”. Now if you only stopped thinking like a liberal, but that would be asking to much.
What is the function of the eye?
#210 And you stopped feeling sorry for yourself. I could almost not dislike you. 😉
Baaaaah you all must have failed basic biology if you couldn’t answer that simple question.
# 190 The_Tick said
”’
@ #116 I believe the crux of your argument is that if there exists no time or space as we know it then nothing must exist. [Um, I think I meant that if nothing exists there could be no time or space. Or at the very least, under those conditions, it would be hard to raise the capital for furnishings.] If you can tear yourself away from the fact that you have to be right, [I’m sorry, Tick, I’m afraid I can’t do that.] then you may consider the fact that there may be existence independent of what we perceive as time and space. [Well, I’ll consider the IDEA. I don’t know how “facty” it is.]
”’
I guess I’m publicly disagreeing with the smartest guy on the planet regarding the subject of his expertise while he is at the top of his game.
That should go well….
“Because there is a law such as gravity,…”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0
jccalhoun said,
#194 “you people are still writing about this?”
No.
I’ve stopped.
Several times.
@ #216 Like I said, if you can tear yourself away from the certainty of being correct, you may begin to understand, though at this point I have my doubts, that time and space are not necessarily “everything”. You seem to be convinced that before the universe existed that there must have been nothing. Big assumption, in my opinion, wrong assumption.
But by all means, continue removing all doubt.
And since you beaked off about gravity, please do explain why the law of said force doesn’t hold true. Should be easy for a guy who understands pre big bang physics as completely as you.
# 217 The_Tick said
”’
@ #216 Like I said, if you can tear yourself away from the certainty of being correct, you may begin to understand, though at this point I have my doubts, that time and space are not necessarily “everything”. You seem to be convinced that before the universe existed that there must have been nothing. Big assumption, in my opinion, wrong assumption.
”’
Not an assumption, really. More of a definition.
#216 Somebody
They have to attribute super natural kung fu voodoo to the bible since they don’t have a pope. That gives them their unassailable authority.
@ #218 Well there’s your problem, you think there is only one definition. You should really let the string theorists know because they are wasting all their time with questions and theories and trying to gain an understanding. Must be nice to be like you and the religious folk who never waste time with questions or truth or any of that other complicated stuff.
Still waiting on the answer to the eye question.
#221 In a nutshell. The animal kingdom is full of simpler eye structures, all functional, and all capable of refinement. That includes the human eyeball. Things change and adapt and evolve. There is much evidence to support this.
The idea of “irreducible complexity” (the term coined by Michael Behe) means that somehow we could reverse evolution is some meaningful manner. I don’t know how you would do that personally, but that’s the logic.
But the real crux of all this (logical finangelings aside) is this. A scientist isn’t committed to believing in natural selection in the same way a religious fundamentalist is committed to rejecting it.
Science is committed to following the evidence, wherever it leads. For example, Darwin knew his theory was missing a key piece since he didn’t have the fundamental mechanism generational adaptation, but he predicted it would be found eventually. Mendel contributed more evidence and research. Watson and Crick figured out DNA which filled in huge pieces of the theory.
Darwin’s work could have been blown out of the water anytime in the last 150 years but it hasn’t – it is still being used, built upon, and supplies tangible research results. Biblical literalists reject it out of hand because it threatens their personal identity as a believer. The fact that their lifespan is now far longer due to Darwin’s theory and subsequent research is of little consequence to their belief.
In general, a fundamental aspect of science is to be open to the possibility of being wrong. This is something a religious fundamentalist can’t do.
Aw, isn’t that cute? Bible thumpers put bs on the internet, so it must be true.
Alfred,
You have yet to reconcile the concept of omniscience and free will as well as the contradictions you have uttered such as:
[God]He is a learning god.
My God is omniscient, He needn’t predict anything to know what is and will be.
As I said in #187, you fail to grasp the scope and true meaning of omniscience and its implications. If you cannot understand this simple contradiction, how can you possibly hope to understand evolution which requires grasping the time frames involved? A lot can happen in millions of years. If you doubt the veracity of the theories of evolution, which are based on the observable fact that species evolve, how can you possibly accept other scientific theories such as gravity? It boggles the mind. The worry isn’t that you will never understand science or the scientific method; the worry is that you vote.
– It’s not what you know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know that ain’t so.
#223 Pope Alfred
“Evolution is a monument to the lengths men will go to deny God.”
Religion is a monument to the lengths men will go to deny the results of the scientific method.
#223 Pope Alfred
Yes, I went to your referenced web site.
Among other things I found the following quote:
“There is no scientific proof that life has evolved.”
I searched in vain for an open minded and equal handed reference to the fact that:
“There is no scientific proof that god exists.”
And you accuse the rest of us of bias. 🙂
Common ancestor of Cats and dogs (in fact, most mammals)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=4B1665EC-E7F2-99DF-332752A3D3E23B03
And plenty of “human-apes” have been found. Here’s a quick rundown
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
Since Alfie seems to be fixated on the “absurdity of the evolution of the eye”, maybe he should consult the following reference to read what Darwin actually said on the subject and to learn about subsequent research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
How about you site a source that’s not a christian/creationist propaganda house?
Can you do better than a PDF leaflet with an obvious agenda?
You have made claims and linked to claims by others and have backed up none of it.
Your “arguments” have done more to highlight your ignorance of science than to prove your point.