Abiogenesis

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OwSARYTK7w[/youtube]

Well, sure seems more likely than that an extremely complex being magically planted the seed of life.

That's quite interesting. Though, surely it would of required specific chemical environments and conditions for those first membranes to appear?

http://exploringorigins.org/

... but only if you've got broadband otherwise the site is unusable. Interestingly they've got a link requesting feedback for the site... but it doesn't work

I get nothing from the link, when I'm in SeaMonkey, but Firefox comes back with:

That's from the "Museum of Science".
Going to http://www.mos.org/ with NoScript operating gets me:
I hate sites that have no accessibility.
http://www.mos.org/contact

PS. I gave them some feedback... and their form wouldn't submit until I enabled JS.

Yes and high radiation.

As was found in early earth.

Abiogenesis is more plausible based on the physical laws of the universe, but it seems unlikely also.

By the way, I really liked your youtube channel, thanks

In the beginning there was no life, now there is. Somehow life emerged from non living material by a natural process. We don't know how (yet).

ruveyn

I can't watch the video due to only having dial-up.

However, as I pointed out yesterday in the Darwin thread in the Computers & Science forum it was discovered a few months ago that RNA spontaneously forms from naturally occurring molecules. Since RNA is the (self replicating) basis of and precursor to all life on the planet there is one less place for a God of the gaps to hide. Life started by natural processes and has continued to evolve since by the natural laws of physics and chemistry. No hand of God required anywhere in the process. People who believe otherwise are just deluding themselves and ignoring the facts.

Do you have a link the paper? It sounds quite interesting.

I believe this was done at Manchester University, that should help with finding more info.

I think that science's ability to create artificial, self-replicating RNA is a great testimony that life does not come from blind chance. I think this should make it obvious to many people that this new "life" did not come by an accidental occurrence of events and the interaction of matter, but by deep-thinking scientists and hard work under very rigid, lab-controlled conditions. And I believe this argues for creation and theism.

-Jono,
this link is from TallyMan's post in the Computers, Math, and Science forum.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/ ... cleotides/

Another one from Wired Science: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/ ... catingrna/

And black really is white?

I'm impressed that, with very little effort, and in a short time, we have shown how it is possible to create new "life".

I quoted that "life", because you did, though I have no idea why. The definition of "life" is definitely not clear, currently. Maybe that's what you meant.

What seems of rather more moment is how, given a billion years, any self-respecting planet can avoid coming up with some form of life.

In our case, it was probably true that various forms of life came into being in that first billion years, but left no fossil record, and were not as successful (by some tiny percentage) as RNA.

You are so far wrong it beggars belief! What was done in the experiments mimicked what happened on Earth during its early history. Puddles of naturally occurring amino acids being subject to sunshine and rain drying out and getting wet again. If RNA can form in a lab in a beaker what are the odds of it forming in similar circumstances in a beaker the size of the planet!! !! !! !!

Frankly I get the impression that believers in creation will continue to believe despite all the facts to the contrary. It is either fingers in ears and "Nah nah nah I'm not listening" or they don't look properly at the science and just make stupid bland assertions. Creationists aren't interested in the facts or truth, they are only concerned in trying to defend their primitive belief systems.

A creationist on here a few months ago argued that the fossil record (which indicates evolution) had been placed there by the devil to deceive mankind! I kid you not. At which point it became obvious that further discussion with her was a complete waste of time, as is often the case with creationists. They have this rigid idea fixed in their head and no facts to the contrary are going to shift it.

Yes, the experiment was carried out by people, the experiment was created.

But, the experiment was only recreating the conditions of early earth.

This proved that one possible origin of life on Earth did not require a creator. The thing that required a creator was recreating the conditions of early Earth in a lab, the development of RNA happened with no interference apart from making the conditions like those of early Earth.

If I found two rocks with a stick on top and then I copied that, does that prove that the two rocks with a stick on top were created?

Not to pick at you, Ruveyn, but that is an example of one of the great problems with some of today's so-called "science":

The outcome has been decided even before the investigation begins!

So silly.

Contempt prior to investigation only promotes continued ignorance.