24 Dec 13
1 edit
As far as I know, this study is the best demonstration to date of how RNA-like molecules probably formed on the early Earth and strongly supports what I think is the best theory to date which is the very first life had no complex proteins nor enzymes nor DNA nor even modern RNA but just made do with a simple RNA-like molecule which spontaneously formed and functioned both as enzymes and genes.
http://phys.org/news/2013-12-scientists-closer-rna.html
“...
In our study, we demonstrate a reaction that we see as important for the formation of the earliest RNA-like molecules
…
….
The researchers mixed TAP with ribose under conditions meant to mimic a drying pond on early Earth. TAP and ribose reacted together in high yield, with up to 80 percent of TAP being converted into nucleosides, which is the name for the ribose-base unit of RNA.
…
This study is important in showing a feasible step for how we get the start of an RNA-like molecule, but also how the building blocks of the first RNA-like polymers could have found each other and self-assembled in what would have been a very complex mixture of chemicals
….
"It is amazing that these nucleosides and bases actually assemble on their own, as life today requires complex enzymes to bring together RNA building blocks and to spatially order them prior to polymerization,"said Brian Cafferty
...”
24 Dec 13
Originally posted by humyIf they succeed in making RNA like that the creationists will still poo poo the work.
As far as I know, this study is the best demonstration to date of how RNA-like molecules probably formed on the early Earth and strongly supports what I think is the best theory to date which is the very first life had no complex proteins nor enzymes nor DNA nor even modern RNA but just made do with a simple RNA-like molecule which spontaneously formed and func ...[text shortened]... building blocks and to spatially order them prior to polymerization,"said Brian Cafferty
...”
25 Dec 13
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat will you poor creationists do when they cans start with a set of chemical reactions and end up with a totally man made life form from scratch, life from rocks?
The truth is that RNAs are almost as complicated as DNA. That is why scientists are getting Nobel prizes for their discoveries about them.
26 Dec 13
Originally posted by sonhouseHard to say, maybe they can if they put enough time and effort into the
What will you poor creationists do when they cans start with a set of chemical reactions and end up with a totally man made life form from scratch, life from rocks?
design, it’s a good thing they are leaving their intelligence out of the work
so we cannot say it requires it.
Kelly
26 Dec 13
Originally posted by sonhouseYou forgot to say the word, "period" behind your statement of what is to
No, that will be solid science. BTW, it is coming and there is nothing in your small universe that can change that.
come! You know just like all the other great statements of faith made to
the masses to prove a point!
Kelly
26 Dec 13
Originally posted by KellyJayIt is not faith but a matter of logic that science will eventually make life from none life because it would be just a matter of degree of technological advance.
You forgot to say the word, "period" behind your statement of what is to
come! You know just like all the other great statements of faith made to
the masses to prove a point!
Kelly
Science can already make certain components of a living cell and demonstrate it to function just fine (for example, a whole functional chromosome was made and inserted into a cell and was shown to work just fine )
It is just a matter of time before science can make each and every component of a living cell and then put it together to make a single whole living cell.
What mysterious barrier would stop science from doing this?
Is there any specific component of a living cell that we cannot make? If so, please tell us what it is and explain why we cannot make it; I mean, exactly what impossible barrier will forever stop science finding a way?
26 Dec 13
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayYour statement can be best described with the word "Smug".
You forgot to say the word, "period" behind your statement of what is to
come! You know just like all the other great statements of faith made to
the masses to prove a point!
Kelly
Your insistence of us having 'faith' as if by so saying you equate science with religion.
Funny WE who actually work in the sciences don't think of it as faith. We think of it as evidence revealed.
It is only you ultra-religious folk who insist (with no basis in fact, just opinion) that we of the sciences must have 'faith'.
Like we start an experiment and give sacrifices to a god that the results may bear out what we presuppose.
I hate to break it to you, but that is not science. That would be like that religion called 'Christian Science'.
Real scientists set up an experiment not with the goal of proving a predisposed point but to find something totally unexpected.
THAT is the way to new knowledge, not some vague sacrifice to some god of science hoping an experiment proves your built in bias.
If you want you can view this video of the unexpected in science and how it leads to new science.
This is the antithesis of faith:
http://www.poptech.org/popcasts/kevin_dunbar_on_unexpected_science
If you got that far that you watched professor Dunbar's talk, he talked about diversity and analogy.
This next vid shows exactly that, unexpected results in a scientific field and analogies used and a diverse bunch of scientists exploring in their fields:
http://www.sciencecodex.com/expedition_yields_unexpected_clues_to_ocean_mysteries-124094
26 Dec 13
Originally posted by humyWhy sure it isn't something you believe, why because your beliefs tell you
It is not faith but a matter of logic that science will eventually make life from none life because it would be just a matter of degree of technological advance.
Science can already make certain components of a living cell and demonstrate it to function just fine (for example, a whole functional chromosome was made and inserted into a cell and was shown to wo ...[text shortened]... make it; I mean, exactly what impossible barrier will forever stop science finding a way?
just look at your logic?
Kelly
26 Dec 13
Originally posted by sonhouseYou may not call it faith, but it doesn't change what it is.
Your statement can be best described with the word "Smug".
Your insistence of us having 'faith' as if by so saying you equate science with religion.
Funny WE who actually work in the sciences don't think of it as faith. We think of it as evidence revealed.
It is only you ultra-religious folk who insist (with no basis in fact, just opinion) that we ...[text shortened]... lds:
http://www.sciencecodex.com/expedition_yields_unexpected_clues_to_ocean_mysteries-124094
Kelly