09 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseThe IDers are not interested. The findings counterproof any ID claim, so it must be wrong, they'll say.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090309104434.htm
I wonder what the ID crowd will think of this one? Science, 1, Creationists, 0.
09 Mar 09
1 edit
Reading this link has just given me an interesting thought:
-perhaps the first ‘life’ was not exactly a single cell but rather a free-floating self-replicating ribosome? But then later became encapsulated in a cell-like structure and then lost its ability to self replicate?
After all, a ribosome has:
1, the ability to synthesise protein
2, genetic material in the form of RNA.
09 Mar 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltoni believe there first was a bunch of RNA, floathing around, somehow it got able to selfreplicate. After that some of this RNA was enclosed in a lipid bilayer.
Reading this link has just given me an interesting thought:
-perhaps the first ‘life’ was not exactly a single cell but rather a free-floating self-replicating ribosome? But then later became encapsulated in a cell-like structure and then lost its ability to self replicate?
After all, a ribosome has:
1, the ability to synthesise protein
2, genetic material in the form of RNA.
interesting article sonhouse, what is ID crowd?
10 Mar 09
Originally posted by zozozozoID'ers are a right wing ultra-religious group in the US. They are Creationists, who believe in the biblical version of creation in Genesis. They want to force Creationism to be taught side by side with evolution in science classes in middle schools and high schools and have taken that fight to court and lost every time, then they changed their name to Intelligent Designers (ID) to attempt to hide the fact they are creationists pushing a religious agenda. They lost those ID court battles also and now are using a new technique a bit harder to win in court: teaching ID alongside evolution based not on ID but freedom of press issues, alternative educational opportunities or some such rot. It is all designed to kill evolution as a science. They have no issue with most of the other sciences but when it comes to evolution they go ape🙂
i believe there first was a bunch of RNA, floathing around, somehow it got able to selfreplicate. After that some of this RNA was enclosed in a lipid bilayer.
interesting article sonhouse, what is ID crowd?
10 Mar 09
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThe thought had occurred to me! So making artificial life proves ID. I suppose that will be their line, then. But first, won't they have to prove we are intelligent? That might be a sticking point🙂
All good stuff, but bear in mind you are using an example of intelligent design to refute intelligent design 😕
10 Mar 09
Originally posted by sonhouseThe idea here is to show that lifeless molecules actually can reproduce themself spontanuously with no aid from any intelligent being. How it could work at the very beginning of life.
The thought had occurred to me! So making artificial life proves ID. I suppose that will be their line, then. But first, won't they have to prove we are intelligent? That might be a sticking point🙂
Next step is to show that these molecules can come into being in the beginning of life era on Earth. Like amino acids in a test tube in the famous experiment.
10 Mar 09
Originally posted by sonhouseOk i see, thx
ID'ers are a right wing ultra-religious group in the US. They are Creationists, who believe in the biblical version of creation in Genesis. They want to force Creationism to be taught side by side with evolution in science classes in middle schools and high schools and have taken that fight to court and lost every time, then they changed their name to Intel ...[text shortened]... They have no issue with most of the other sciences but when it comes to evolution they go ape🙂
"but when it comes to evolution they go ape🙂"
haha i love it😀
10 Mar 09
Originally posted by sonhousebut they made ribosomes from pieces of ribosome right?
The thought had occurred to me! So making artificial life proves ID. I suppose that will be their line, then. But first, won't they have to prove we are intelligent? That might be a sticking point🙂
It would be alot harder to Intelligent-Design-Create these pieces of molecules.
(I assume the ID ppl think God created the atoms and molecules (then perhaps glued them together)).
10 Mar 09
Originally posted by sonhouseCreating artificial life should not affect the ID argument in any way (for or against). What would mess them up is showing that life can arise from non-life without too much intervention.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090309104434.htm
I wonder what the ID crowd will think of this one? Science, 1, Creationists, 0.
Creating artificial life might upset some people who believe that life contains a hidden 'magic spark' or 'ghost in the machine' that only God can put there.
But I doubt that there are many people who would deny that it is theoretically possible to create a living cell by copying every single part of a known living cell. Such a feat does not in any way disprove or even go against the typical arguments of creationist or IDers
10 Mar 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasYes. I believe all the components were together and luckily fit and started replicating somehow. Perhaps in the big soup from Darwin but there are many theorys of where this could have taken place.
The idea here is to show that lifeless molecules actually can reproduce themself spontanuously with no aid from any intelligent being. How it could work at the very beginning of life.
- deep sea vents
- ice (sea ice i think)
- mars (on a meteorite to earth)
We are not sure, so hooray for all the science projects on this subject🙂
10 Mar 09
Originally posted by DeepThoughtBut what ID’s normally mean by “intelligent design” in the context of life is “God’s design” and that means NOT “human design” for they claim that a “God” MUST have designed life.
All good stuff, but bear in mind you are using an example of intelligent design to refute intelligent design 😕
Therefore, a demonstration that an intelligent designer that is NOT a “god” can produce life is evidence against their claim.