Science Unspoken Axiom #1: Deities are nonsense

413 posts / 0 new
Last post
Diotrephes's picture
David Killens,

David Killens,

"Then please explain why my father, a devout christian (even a Mason) suffered a long, lingering, and painful death from cancer?"

Sometimes when people see their loved ones suffer msfortune they tae it upon themselves to make it better for other people. They might start a charity, develope a prosthesis, create a new medicine, pass a law, etc., as a way of showing how much their loved one meant to them.

You will have to find your own purpose in the death of your father from cancer but hundreds of millions of people have died from various forms of it and some have tried to make things better by inventing new medicines and procedures for treating the disease. Sponsor a child who wants to be a nurse or a doctor.

edited spelling

sourcecodewizard's picture
Also this brings up the point

Also this brings up the point of old age itself.
If natural selection were the driving force in our world then why do we age when single celled organisms do not?
Furthermore why do mammals even exist?
One would expect a "naturally selected" world to be dominated by poisonous carnivores that lay lots of eggs and live indefinitely. Super evolved wasps, hornets and the like would be chowing down on slow breeders like us before we ever had a chance.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@SEC

@SEC

MORE AND MORE ASSERTIONS, less and less evidence of intelligence.

LostLocke's picture
First, radio static will

First, radio static will never produce a valid radio program. Neither will TV noise produce a valid TV program. So how could molecules randomly create working computers?

Uh, that's not how radio works. The radio that you hear is not a collection of static that's been "arranged" to produce an audible sound. In fact, the static that you hear isn't "radio" at all.
Do you want to find out what some of it really is? It's pretty cool when you think about it... ;)

Calilasseia's picture
@LostLocke

@LostLocke

I decided to do just that. The exposition I encountered on thermal noise alone was nice and intricate.

sourcecodewizard's picture
so real radio programs will

so real radio programs will never spontaneously form they must be "arranged"
Since humans are greater than radio programs how could atoms magically "arrange" themselves?

Calilasseia's picture
Atoms are arranging

Atoms are arranging themselves into all manner of combinations right now as I type this. It's called chemistry, and I suggest you learn something about it. No "magic" involved.

sourcecodewizard's picture
then show how *chemistry* can

then show how *chemistry* can scientifically explain *life* ….oh wait you can't

Calilasseia's picture
I love it when arrogant

I love it when arrogant supernaturalists say I can't back up my statements. Read below and fucking weep.

Hmm, let's give this a whirl shall we?

The Origin Of Life On Earth - A Brief Overview Of Relevant Scientific Findings

In the earliest period of the history of the planet, it was a body devoid of life, and conditions on the planet were far from conducive to the appearance of life, particularly during the episode termed "The Late Heavy Bombardment" [1] by scientists, which saw intense bolide impact activity taking place on the planet's surface. Once this episode, and subsequent episodes postulated to have taken place, were complete, the Earth cooled, a solid crust formed, and liquid water in quantity began to appear. Thus, the stage was set for the processes that were to result in the emergence of life.

It was Darwin himself who first speculated about the origins of life, with his short remarks about a "warm little pond" [2], but, in the middle of the 19th century, this would remain speculation, as the means to determine the mechanisms that might apply had not yet been developed. However, it made eminent sense to scientists following Darwin, to hypothesise that any natural mechanisms responsible for the origin of life would be based upon organic chemistry, since life itself is manifestly based thereupon - millions of organic reactions are taking place within your body as you read this, and indeed, the cessation of some of those reactions constitutes the end of life for any organisms affected. Alexander Oparin, the Soviet biochemist, was the first to publish hypotheses about the chemical basis of the origin of life [3], and based his own hypotheses on the notion that a reducing atmosphere existed on the primordial Earth, facilitating the production of various organic compounds that would then react further, producing a cascade of escalating complexity that would ultimately result in self-replicating entities. Back in 1924, his hypotheses remained beyond the remit of scientists to test, but that would soon change.

The first indications that Oparin had alighted upon workable ideas came in 1953, with the celebrated Miller-Urey Experiment [4], in which electrical discharges in a reducing atmosphere composed of simple molecules produced measurable quantities of amino acids. Miller himself only cited the presence of five amino acids, as he was reliant at the time upon paper chromatography as his primary analytical tool, which was only sensitive enough to detect those five amino acids cited. However, Miller had been more successful than he originally claimed: after his death, preserved samples of his original reaction mixtures were subject to state-of-the-art analysis, using gas chromatograph mass spectrometry, a technique millions of times more sensitive, and regarded as the 'gold standard' in modern organic analysis. That subsequent analysis yielded not five, but twenty-two amino acids [5].

Early criticism of Miller's work in the scientific community focused upon the requirement for a reducing atmosphere in accordance with the Oparin model. However, subsequent workers determined by repeat experimentation, that a range of atmospheric constitutions would be suitable for a Miller-Urey type synthesis on a prebiotic Earth [6], several of those constitutions being only mildly reducing, expanding the range of conditions for which the Oparin model would be viable. More recently, work has suggested that the prebiotic Earth could have developed an atmosphere containing considerably more hydrogen than originally thought [7], making the Oparin reducing atmosphere once again more plausible. Indeed, the range of conditions under which amino acids could be synthesised has since been expanded to include interstellar ice clouds, courtesy of more recent research [8 - 14], and the Murchison meteorite was found to contain no less than ninety amino acids, nineteen of which are found on Earth, which were obviously synthesised whilst that meteorite was still in space. Other data from meteorites adds to this body of evidence [10, 15, 16].

The formation of amino acids itself, whilst an important step in any naturalistic origin of life, would need to be accompanied by some means of linking those amino acids into peptide molecules [17] - the process by which proteins are formed. A significant step forward with respect to this, arose when researchers alighted upon the fact that carbonyl sulphide, a gas that is produced in quantity naturally by volcanoes, acts as a catalyst for the formation of peptides, increasing yields dramatically [18]. This would facilitate peptide formation not only in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, but in the vicinity of terrestrial volcanoes close to bodies of open water. Indeed, Miller had produced the 22 amino acids found in some of his reaction mixtures by extending the synthesis to include volcanic input, though not carbonyl sulphide - the addition of carbonyl sulphide would, however, facilitate peptide formation rapidly once the amino acids themselves were formed.

One additional problem to be overcome was the 'chirality problem'. Amino acids, with the exception of glycine, are chiral molecules, existing in two forms that are mirror images of each other in space (stereoisomers). Initially, methods for producing one form preferentially over another were something of a puzzle, but chemists working in an entirely different field established that a process called 'chiral catalysis' exists, indeed, this work led to a Nobel Prize for the researchers in question [19]. The demonstrated existence of working chiral catalysts [20] led abiogenesis researchers to seek such catalytic processes in their own field, and, in due course, these were alighted upon [15, 21- 24].

However, amino acids are not the only molecules required for life, important though they are. Some form of self-replicating molecule, providing the basis of an inheritance mechanism, is required. Given the difficulties involved in synthesising DNA as a total synthesis, researchers turned to RNA instead, a molecule that still forms the basis of the genomes of numerous extant taxonomic Families of viruses today. RNA, being easier to synthesise, was considered a natural first choice for the basis of primordial genomes, and thus, attention turned to the synthesis of RNA under prebiotic conditions. This was soon found not only to be possible, but to be readily achievable in the laboratory, and indeed, catalysis plays a role in these experiments. Natural clays formed from a mineral called montmorillonite provide a ready natural catalyst that would have been present in quantity on a prebiotic Earth, and the catalytic chemistry of RNA formation whilst adsorbed to such clays is now a standard part of the scientific literature [22- 42].

Having established that RNA was synthesisable under prebiotic conditions, researchers then turned to the matter of establishing the existence of self-replicating species of RNA molecules. This was duly successful [30, 43, 45 - 47], establishing that such species could have arisen among the extant RNA molecules being synthesised on a prebiotic Earth, and of course, once one self-replicating species exists, the process of evolution can begin, which has also since been demonstrated to apply to replicating RNAs in appropriate laboratory experiments [48].

Once a self-replicating molecule that can form the basis of an inheritance mechanism exists, the next stage scientists postulate to be required is encapsulation within some sort of selectively permeable membrane. The molecules of choice for these membrane are lipids, which have been demonstrated repeatedly in the laboratory to undergo spontaneous self-organisation into various structures, such as bilayer sheets, micelles and liposomes. Indeed, in the case of phospholipids, they can be stimulated to self-organise by the simple process of agitating the solution within which they are suspended - literally, shake the bottle [49 - 53]. Moreover, research has established that these lipids can encapsulate RNA molecules, and selectively admit the passage of base and sugar molecules to facilitate RNA replication [54, 55]. With the advent of this discovery in appropriate laboratory research, protocell formation is but a short step away, and indeed, the latest research is now actively concentrating upon the minimum components required in order for a viable, self-replicating protocell to exist. Prebiotic lipid formation is also a part of the repertoire of the literature in the field, and some papers now extant document the first experiments aimed at producing viable self-replicating protocells [55 - 70].

Whilst scientists naturally accept that 'joining the dots' between these individual steps is entirely proper, particularly on a body the size of a planet over a 100 million year period, the absence of experiments actively coupling these stages is a matter remaining to be addressed, though such experiments will be ambitious in scope indeed if they are to produce complete working protocells at the end of a long production line starting with a Miller-Urey synthesis. A 'grand synthesis' of this sort in the laboratory is not high on the scientific agenda at the moment, which is more concerned with validating the individual hypothesised steps, but once those steps are accepted as valid in the field, doubtless one day a 'grand synthesis' will be attempted, and the success thereof will establish beyond serious doubt that our pale blue dot became our home courtesy of well-defined and testable chemical reactions. Even so, no one conversant with the literature seriously considers any more that magical forces are required to produce life: just as vitalism was refuted by Wöhler's classic experiment, that gave rise to organic chemistry as an empirical science in the first place, so it is likely to be rendered ever more irrelevant in abiogenesis research, as the steps leading to life's blossoming on our planet are traversed and studied in ever greater detail.

References:

[1] An apposite paper (among many) covering the Late Heavy Bombardment is:

Origin Of The Cataclysmic Late Heavy Bombardment Period Of The Terrestrial Planets by R. Gomes, H. F. Levison, K. Tsiganis and A. Morbidelli, Nature, 435: 466-469 (26th May 2005)

[2] Cited in The Life And Letters Of Charles Darwin, Including An Autobiographical Chapter, edited by Francis Darwin, 1887

[3] The Origin And Development Of Life by Alexander Oparin, 1924 (English translation: NASA TTF-488)

[4] A Production Of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions by Stanley L. Miller, Science, 117: 528-529 (15th May 1953)

[5] The Miller Volcanic Discharge Spark Experiment by Adam P. Johnson, H. James Cleaves, Jason P. Dworkin, Daniel P. Glavin, Antonio Lazcano and Jeffrey L. Bada, Science, 322:404 (17th Ocotber 2008)

[6] Amino Acid Synthesis From Hydrogen Cyanide Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions by J. Oró and S. S.Kamat, Nature, 190: 442-443 (1961)

[7] A Hydrogen Rich Early Earth Atmosphere by Feng Tian, Owen B. Toon, Alexander A. Pavlov and H. de Sterck, Science, 308: 1014-1017 (13th May 2005)

[8] A Rigorous Attempt To Verify Interstellar Glycine by I. E. Snyder, F. J. Lovas, J. M. Hollis, D. N. Friedel, P. R. Jewell, A. Remijan, V. V. Ilyushin, E. A. Alekseev and S. F. Dyubko, The Astrophysical Journal, 619(2): 914-930 (1st February 2005)

[9] Interstellar Glycine by Yi-Jehng Kuan, Steven B. Charnley, Hui-Chun Huang, Wei-Ling Tseng, and Zbigniew Kisiel, The Astrophysical Journal, 593: 848-867 (20th August 2003)

[10] Prebiotic Materials From On And Off The Early Earth by Max Bernstein, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

[11] Racemic Amino Acids From The Ultraviolet Photolysis Of Interstellar Ice Analogues by Max P. Bernstein, Jason P. Dworkin, Scott A. Sandford, George W. Copoper and Louis J. Allamandola, Nature, 416: 401-403

[12] A Combined Experimental And Theoretical Study On The Formation Of The Amino Acid Glycine And Its Isomer In Extraterrestrial Ices by Philip D. Holtom, Chris J. Bennett, Yoshihiro Osamura, Nigel J Mason and Ralf. I Kaiser, The Astrophysical Journal, 626: 940-952 (20th June 2005)

[13] The Lifetimes Of Nitriles (CN) And Acids (COOH) During Ultraviolet Photolysis And Their Survival In Space by Max P. Bernstein, Samantha F. M. Ashbourne, Scott A. Sandford and Louis J. Allamandola, The Astrophysical Journal, 601: 3650270 (20th January 2004)

[14] The Prebiotic Molecules Observed In The Interstellar Gas by P. Thaddeus, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (7th September 2006)

[15] Molecular Asymmetry In Extraterrestrial Chemistry: Insights From A Pristine Meteorite by Sandra Pizzarello, Yongsong Huang and Marcelo R. Alexandre, Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(10): 3700-3704 (11th March 2008)

[16] Organic Compounds In Carbonaceous Meteorites by Mark A. Sephton, Natural Products Reports (Royal Society of Chemistry), 19: 292-311 (2002)

[17] Peptides By Activation Of Amino Acids With CO On (Ni,Fe)S Surfaces: Implications For The Origin Of Life by Claudia Huber and Günter Wächtershäuser, Science, 281: 670-672 (31st July 1998)

[18] Carbonyl Sulphide-Mediated Prebiotic Formation Of Peptides by Luke Leman, Leslie Orgel and M. Reza Ghadiri, Science, 306: 283-286 (8th October 2004)

[19] Nobel Prize for Chemistry, 2001, was awarded to William S. Knowles, Ryoji Noyori and K. Barry Sharpless, for their work establishing the existence of asymmetric catalysts and chiral catalysis - see the Nobel Lecture by William S. Knowles here

[20] Homogeneous Catalysis In The Decomposition Of Diazo Compounds By Copper Chelates: Asymmetric Carbenoid Reactions by H. Nozaki, H. Takaya, S. Moriuti and R. Noyori, Tetrahedron, 24(9): 3655-2669 (1968)

[21] Prebiotic Amino Acids As Asymmetric Catalysts by Sandra Pizzarello and Arthur L. Weber, Science, 303: 1151 (20 February 2004)

[22] Homochiral Selection In The Montmorillonite-Catalysed And Uncatalysed Prebiotic Synthesis Of RNA by Prakash C. Joshi, Stefan Pitsch and James P. Ferris, Chemical Communications (Royal Society of Chemistry), 2497-2498 (2000) [DOI: 10.1039/b007444f]

[23] RNA-Directed Amino Acid Homochirality by J. Martyn Bailey, FASEB Journal (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology), 12: 503-507 (1998)

[24] Catalysis In Prebiotic Chemistry: Application To The Synthesis Of RNA Oligomers by James P. Ferris, Prakash C. Joshi, K-J Wang, S. Miyakawa and W. Huang, Advances in Space Research, 33: 100-105 (2004)

[25] Cations As Mediators Of The Adsorption Of Nucleic Acids On Clay Surfaces In Prebiotic Environments by Marco Franchi, James P. Ferris and Enzo Gallori, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 33: 1-16 (2003)

[26] Ligation Of The Hairpin Ribozyme In cis Induced By Freezing And Dehydration by Sergei A. Kazakov, Svetlana V. Balatskaya and Brian H. Johnston, The RNA Journal, 12: 446-456 (2006)

[27] Mineral Catalysis And Prebiotic Synthesis: Montmorillonite-Catalysed Formation Of RNA by James P. Ferris, Elements, 1: 145-149 (June 2005)

[28] Montmorillonite Catalysis Of 30-50 Mer Oligonucleotides: Laboratory Demonstration Of Potential Steps In The Origin Of The RNA World by James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the biosphere, 32: 311-332 (2002)

[29] Montmorillonite Catalysis Of RNA Oligomer Formation In Aqueous Solution: A Model For The Prebiotic Formation Of RNA by James P. Ferris and Gözen Ertem, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 115: 12270-12275 (1993)

[30] Nucelotide Synthetase Ribozymes May Have Emerged First In The RNA World by Wentao Ma, Chunwu Yu, Wentao Zhang and Jiming Hu, The RNA Journal, 13: 2012-2019, 18th September 2007

[31] Prebiotic Chemistry And The Origin Of The RNA World by Leslie E. Orgel, Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 39: 99-123 (2004)

[32] Prebiotic Synthesis On Minerals: Bridging The Prebiotic And RNA Worlds by James P. Ferris, Biological Bulletin, 196: 311-314 (June 1999)

[33] RNA Catalysis In Model Protocell Vesicles by Irene A Chen, Kourosh Salehi-Ashtiani and Jack W Szostak, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 127: 13213-13219 (2005)

[34] RNA-Catalysed Nucleotide Synthesis by Peter J. Unrau and David P. Bartel, Nature, 395: 260-263 (17th September 1998)

[35] RNA-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization: Accurate and General RNA-Templated Primer Extension by Wendy K. Johnston, Peter J. Unrau, Michael S. Lawrence, Margaret E. Glasner and David P. Bartel, Science, 292: 1319-1325, 18th May 2001

[36] RNA-Directed Amino Acid Homochirality by J. Martyn Bailey, FASEB Journal (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology), 12: 503-507 (1998)

[37] RNA Evolution And The Origin Of Life by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature, 338: 217-224 (16th March 1989)

[38] Sequence- And Regio-Selectivity In The Montmorillonite-Catalysed Synthesis Of RNA by Gözen Ertem and James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 30: 411-422 (2000)

[39] Synthesis Of 35-40 Mers Of RNA Oligomers From Unblocked Monomers. A Simple Approach To The RNA World by Wenhua Huang and James P. Ferris, Chemical Communications of the Royal Society of Chemistry, 1458-1459 (2003)

[40] Synthesis Of Long Prebiotic Oligomers On Mineral Surfaces by James P. Ferris, Aubrey R. Hill Jr, Rihe Liu and Leslie E. Orgel, Nature, 381: 59-61 (2nd May 1996)

[41] The Antiquity Of RNA-Based Evolution by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature, 418: 214-221, 11th July 2002

[42] The Roads To And From The RNA World by Jason P. Dworkin, Antonio Lazcano and Stanley L. Miller, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 222: 127-134 (2003)

[43] A Self-Replicating Ligase Ribozyme by Natasha Paul & Gerald F. Joyce, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99(20): 12733-12740 (1st October 2002)

[44] Emergence Of A Replicating Species From An In Vitro RNA Evolution Reaction by Ronald R. Breaker and Gerald F. Joyce, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 91: 6093-6097 (June 1994)

[45] Ribozymes: Building The RNA World by Gerald F. Joyce, Current Biology, 6(8): 965-967, 1996

[46] Self-Sustained Replication Of An RNA Enzyme by Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce, ScienceExpress, DOI: 10.1126/science.1167856 (8th January 2009)

[47] The Origin Of Replicators And Reproducers by Eörs Szathmáry, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

[48] Darwinian Evolution On A Chip by Brian M. Paegel and Gerald F. Joyce, Public Library of Science Biology, 6(4): e85 (April 2008)

[49] Formation Of Bimolecular Membranes From Lipid Monolayers And A Study Of Their Electrical Properties by M. Montal and P. Mueller, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 69(12): 3561-3566 (December 1972)

[50] Lipid Bilayer Fibres From Diastereomeric And Enantiomeric N-Octylaldonamides by Jürgen-Hinrich Fuhrhop, Peter Schneider, Egbert Boekema and Wolfgang Helfrich, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 110: 2861-2867 (1988)

[51] Molecular Dynamics Simulation Of The Formation, Structure, And Dynamics Of Small Phospholipid Vesicles by Siewert J. Marrink and Alan E. Mark, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 125: 15233-15242 (2003)

[52] Simulation Of The Spontaneous Aggregation Of Phospholipids Into Bilayers by Siewert J. Marrink, Eric Lindahl, Olle Edholm and Alan E. Mark, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 123: 8638-8639 (2001)

[53] The Lipid World by Daniel Segré, Dafna Ben-Eli, David W. Deamer and Doron Lancet, Origins of Life And Evolution of the Biosphere, 31: 119-145, 2001

[54] Replicating Vesicles As Models Of Primitive Cell Growth And Division by Martin M. Hanczyc and Jack W. Szostak, Current Opinion In Chemical Biology, 8: 660-664 (22nd October 2004)

[55] RNA Catalysis In Model Protocell Vesicles by Irene A Chen, Kourosh Salehi-Ashtiani and Jack W Szostak, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 127: 13213-13219 (2005)

[56] Coevolution Of Compositional Protocells And Their Environment by Barak Shenhav, Aia Oz and Doron Lancet, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 362: 1813-1819 (9th May 2007)

[57] Computational Models For The Formation Of Protocell Structures by Linglan Edwards, Yun Peng and James A. Reggia, Artificial Life, 4(1): 61-77 (1998)

[58] Coupled Growth And Division Of Model Protocell Membranes by Ting F. Zhu and Jack W. Szostak, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 131: 5705-5713 (2009)

[59] Evolution And Self-Assembly Of Protocells by Ricard V. Solé, The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology, 41: 274-284 (2009)

[60] Formation Of Protocell-Like Structures From Glycine And Formaldehyde In A Modified Sea Medium by Hiroshi Yanagawa and Fujio Egami, Proceedings of the Japan Academy, 53: 42-45 (12th January 1977)

[61] Formation Of Protocell-Like Vesicles In A Thermal Diffusion Column by Itay Budin, Raphael J. Bruckner and Jack W. Szostak, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 131: 9628-9629 (2009)

[62] Generic Darwinian Selection In Catalytic Protocell Assemblies by Andreea Munteanu, Camille Stephan-Otto Attolini, Steen Rasmussen, Hans Ziock and Ricard V. Solé, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 362: 1847-1855 (2007)

[63] Kin Selection And Virulence In The Evolution Of Protocells And Parasites by Steven A. Frank, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Part B, 258: 153-161 (1994)

[64] Nutrient Uptake By Protocells: A Liposome Model System by Pierre-Alain Monnard and David W. Deamer, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 31: 147-155 (2001)

[65] Synchronisation Phenomena In Internal Reaction Models Of Protocells by Roberto Serra, Timoteo Carletti, Alessandro Filisetti and Irene Poli, Artificial life, 13: 123-128 (2007)

[66] Synchronisation Phenomena In Protocell Models by Alessandro Filisetti, Roberto Serra, Timoteo Carletti, Irene Poli and Marco Villani, Biophysical Reviews and Letters, 3(1-2): 325-342 (2008)

[67] Synthetic Protocell Biology: From Reproduction To Computation by Ricard V. Solé, Andreea Munteanu, Carlos Rodriguez-Caso and Javier Macia, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 362: 1727-1739 (October 2007)

[68] Template-Directed Synthesis Of A Genetic Polymer In A Model Protocell by Sheref S. Mansy, Jason P. Schrum, Mathangi Krisnamurthy, Sylvia Tobé, Douglas A. Treco and Jack W. Szostak, Nature, 454: 122-125 (4th June 2008)

[69] The Emergence Of Competition Between Model Protocells by Irene A Chen, Richard W. Roberts and Jack W. Szostak, Science, 305:1474-1476 (3rd September 2004)

[70] Thermostability Of Model Protocell Membranes by Sheref S. Mansy and Jack W. Szostak, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(36): 13351-13355 (9th September 2008)

sourcecodewizard's picture
Thank you for proving my

Thank you for proving my point with cited references and saving me the trouble.

So how was the first living cell formed?
Answer: They don't know.

Better yet, lets pretend, for the sake of argument that we could scoop of bunch of dirt and water, make sure there was no living material in it, let it sit in the sun and over a week long period video living cells occur just like in your pretend, made up version of science fantasy conjectureland. The logic of my OP still stands. The system itself still requires design just like a binary transmission signal from your ET. It does not change the argument in the lest.

I just like showing how much science fantasy you people extrapolate into a faith that so many of you *believe* is based on drawing conclusions from evidence. Where is the evidence of how a living cell is formed in anything you provided or could provide? Have they built one from scratch? No. Do they have a computer model showing a cell forming? No. You see a few straight lines and curves and start extrapolating how a novel was written when you have not even a valid alphabet yet. Conjecture is not knowledge but thank you for saving me the trouble of doing the same. And, as I pointed out, it is entirely irrelevant to the logic of the OP. But nice try.

Calilasseia's picture
What part of "the experiments

What part of "the experiments contained in those papers WORK" do you not understand? Including experiments devoted to the construction of model protocells, several of which are documented in papers in that list?

No fucking "faith" required.

Now, do you have something other than blind assertions and stonewalling to offer here?

You can start by answering the challenge you've kept dodging the way Kent Hovind dodged paying tax ... do you know what it takes to convert the "design" assertion into something other than the product of your rectal passage? Just be honest and admit it if you don't.

sourcecodewizard's picture
No "faith" required?

No "faith" required?

Wow.

Please show me the living cell that was constructed by non living material. Not naturally formed, mind you but with all the Kings PhDs and all the Kings equipment. Let's see it, Mr. No faith required.

Of course that would only prove that it COULD have occurred the way shown in the lab not that it DID occur. For that you would need some type of historic record of that first cell. Not very easy to come by, huh? But that's ok as long as everyone who are working on a nearly impossible problem are Axiom #1, Dr. ThinkAlikes and rubber stamp each other's papers. Hey, nobody will ever know one way or another anyway so what difference does it make.

Then you can take your, No fucking "faith" required, and show me the tank that you carefully sterilized from all living material before putting in your built cell and introduce me to Grog after he walks out as the direct product of your evolution. But even Grog himself won't prove that is what DID occur only that it is what COULD have occurred.

But even if you were to manage to prove your entire science boy fantasy real live fact, then you would get to explain how the constants of nature just so happened to be exactly arranged for the whole thing to even work.

And after THAT, you can tell us all how a bunch of magical magnets *self appeared* out of nothing to begin with.

So let's see. You wrote a whole lot and had many citations. Bravo. Now compare the tiny speck of the entirety of knowledge that we actually HAVE with the Gobs upon Gobs of fantasy you are counting on to have even the remotest hope of explaining how working computers formed without a designer.

No faith? Ok. how about boyish hopefulness in a science fantasy conjecture? Doesn't have the same ring to it.

So much BS you guys are peddling and you know it.
And selling it to kids as SCIENCE. What a joke.

Calilasseia's picture
Read the fucking scientific

Read the fucking scientific papers and learn about this.What part of "scientists are now constructing model protocells in the lab" did you not understand from my above exposition?

sourcecodewizard's picture
After it evolves into Grog,

After it evolves into Grog, have him give me a call and explain why the physics constants fall into place to make the machine run. He can also fill me in on why the Big Bang happened and what was before that. You act like a know it all but the truth is that you are a believe it all. No faith required. HA

Skeptical Kevin's picture
@sourcecodewizard,

@sourcecodewizard,

You asked about the origins of life.

You were given almost six dozen sources with a summary about the scientific origins of life.

You responded with "See? They don't know."

You are a dishonest waste. If you want to know why people are turning to atheism, look in the mirror. People are recognizing that theism cannot provide the answers they are looking for because theists don't care about what's TRUE. Your questions are answered repeatedly, but you squirm or dodge the issues or counter questions posed. You are a dishonest debator, I will waste no more time on you and I recommend that no one else does either. You are not interested in learning, logic, reason, critical thinking, or the truth and I see no benefit in interacting with you further.

Edit:
@Calilasseia, I believe you are owed an apology on behalf of this person. Your post was well researched, and it was obvious you put a good deal of time and effort into it. You deserved better than this troll's response of "See, no one knows"

sourcecodewizard's picture
let me guess, you cut and

let me guess, you cut and paste that into each argument without even reading it.

yes his post was well researched and cited. I have no doubt as to the authenticity.

It also addresses 0 of the point of the OP while at the same time saying "Gee isn't the single pixel of this picture amazing?"
It is one pixel of a whole image, cite as many sources as you want and you don't get to claim knowledge that you don't have.

He knows this. I know this.

You....are doing right by sticking up for your bud, but really, let the adults do this part. Stick to eating peanuts in the gallery or making silly comments like red eyes and pot plant dude.

Skeptical Kevin's picture
@sourcecodewizard,

@sourcecodewizard,

First, feel free to look through my post history, you won't find where I posted anything similar to my last response. Your assertion that I copy-paste standardized responses without reading posts could easily have been shown to be false before you accused me. This is the first dishonest thing you have done in your last comment.

Second, the post by Cal was not meant to answer the OP, it was meant to answer your question. You made this comment:

"then show how *chemistry* can scientifically explain *life* ….oh wait you can't"

And he did exactly that. This is the second dishonest thing you have done in the same comment.

Don't ask questions that you do not want answered and do not act dishonestly if you want to be treated fairly and with respect. You have shown you do not deserve it.

arakish's picture
Fuck this shit! Even with

Fuck this shit! Even with the catcher's mask on, I am now injuring my hand and raising a welt where the mask sits on my face from so many facepalms.

sourcecodemigraine, I'll be mailing my medical bills for you to pay.

rmfr

sourcecodewizard's picture
You don't need to see my

You don't need to see my identification.
These are not the droids you are looking for.
I can be on my way.
Move along.

arakish's picture
@ sourcecodemigraine: "You

@ sourcecodemigraine: "You don't need to see my identification."

Nope. I don't. I can track you down with my "network sniffer" computer I still own.

rmfr

sourcecodewizard's picture
You can track down who you

You can track down who you *think* I am. bwahh ha ha

sourcecodewizard's picture
and be careful...you might

and be careful...you might sniff something that you don't like...something that doesn't play by your rules....just sayin....

arakish's picture
@ source code who understands

@ source code who understands not

Here is an screen capture.

rmfr

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
AccretedMinutiae's picture
@sourcecodewizard

@sourcecodewizard

It would actually be fine if you just stated that we didn't know the origins of life, and fostered a discussion on what has been discovered or current research being done in this vein. But you have an agenda, and that agenda caused you to keep going past the point of "we don't know" into the realm of "I do know, and it's God."

End point being - you don't know. I don't know. Researchers closest to the subject don't know. That's where we are. We are most certainly not at "God did it." Not even close. Keep it honest - the fact that you don't keep it honest is the reason you have to sit there and preemptively complain about being mocked and ridiculed as you set out with posts like this.

Cognostic's picture
Nicely put - Nicer than I

Nicely put - Nicer than I would put it. He he he he....

sourcecodewizard's picture
the OP has a proof

the OP has a proof
It is simple
Please re-read then address the points made about SETI
it is proof by contradiction, very clear, very simple yet you avoid it

AccretedMinutiae's picture
@sourcecodewizard

@sourcecodewizard

1) Flickering Light, 2) Planet filled with networked computers. EVIDENCE.

This is nothing more than an analogy. I see no "proof." You're saying that we would recognize purposeful information injected into a broadcast stream of light flashes, and if we recognize that as information with intent, then why don't we recognize the construct of life as intelligently intended, right? If, somehow, a series of flashes were able to be decoded succinctly and evidently as some form of useful/practical information, then yes, we would likely conclude that an intelligence were behind it. And this is because information transmitted with intent is NOT something we have ever found naturally occurring. But do you know what we have found naturally occurring, and being created time and time again by completely natural processes? Human beings and all that they entail... that's what. Our bodies and minds and consciousness all arise without any detectable intervention from an intelligence. And it happens all the time. Every day.

To the point that, if at some time we did come across a star that somehow pulsated at a specific frequency that actually seemed to produce some form of binary code that could be interpreted in some specific way to represent something of significance, and we were able to examine that star and found a natural reason that it appeared to pulsate in this way from our vantage point, well then we would take on a very different view of what it means for a star to pulsate with what seems like intended information. It would no longer seem like such an "alien" mystery, would it? And that's where we are at with the make-up of our human bodies. We literally have BILLIONS of examples, right now, of human beings having been formed by natural processes. We've never seen a single example of a star pulsating with what appears to be an intended message. There's the difference - and the difference is HUGE.

And this is why I said you're being dishonest. You equivocate things that have no business being set as equals and then just keep stating this is "proof" and deflecting everyone's attempts to inform you of how irrational you are being,

sourcecodewizard's picture
I used to be amazed that

I used to be amazed that otherwise intelligent people could fail to see blatantly obvious errors in reasoning.
Then I realized it is because you already KNOW AS FACT that unspoken axiom #1 of science is true.
Your *logic* is only used to prove what you already know, hence the constant circularity....sigh

Dude, where has anyone seen life spawning from non-living material?
Life comes from life, there is no evidence anywhere that suggests otherwise except in science fantasy.

Since that is your *BELIEF* that is fine. It is a faith. You believe you are right. cool.
It just has nothing to do with drawing a conclusion based upon evidence using logic.

Diotrephes's picture
sourcecodewizard,

sourcecodewizard,

"Dude, where has anyone seen life spawning from non-living material?"

Don't you believe that man came from dirt and that woman came from the man's rib?

AccretedMinutiae's picture
My point was, we can see

My point was, we can see natural processes occurring that generate life - even if life was present to spawn the next "generation." There is no God detectable or demonstrable there. Not at all.

If anything, it takes much greater leaps of the imagination to insert some supernatural being and his "handiwork" into the equation - because there is no such thing to be witnessed as necessarily having to be involved. Life simply does it's thing and forges ahead. We're working on discovering life's origins, and we may never get to actual concrete knowledge on the subject - but again, saying you don't know is infinitely more honest than claiming you do know and proposing God.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.