Amino Acids Created in Deep-Space-Like Environment

klevin writes "NASA scientists today announced the creation of amino acids, critical for life, in an environment that mimics deep space. The above link is the press release, with additional details here."

Comments

Imagine!

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine a beowolf cluster of deep-space-like environments!

Re:Imagine!

[_B_JOMAMANUP_S_]

no,imagine a beowulf cluster of animo acids, oh my that you make ... *drum roll* a living being ... dumbass

Re:Imagine!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know many of you are reading this right now, so please help me.

I'm trying to track down this man because I have something very important to tell him.

Please help me locate him.

Re:Imagine!

[alpine80]

mmmmm deep-space

soo...

[Anonymous Coward]

does his mean my chances for finding an alien hotty, ala kirk, have just gone way up?

Re:soo...

[0xB]

Only if you like left-handed hotties.

Re:soo...

[Anonymous Coward]

does his mean my chances for finding an alien hotty, ala kirk, have just gone way up?

I've seen you. No.

Haven't I seen this before?

[!ramirez]

Isn't this similar to what Stanley Miller and Harold Urey found in the 1960's with their spark-chamber experiment? While this seems to be stellar in nature, how much different is UV photolysis from electrical discharge as far as chemical reactions go?

Re:Haven't I seen this before?

[0xB]

The spark-chamber experiments simulated conditions on earth. Warm, wet with an atmosphere. These show amino acids can be created in space. Cold vacuum filled with nasty radiation.

Chemically it's the same - you're making the same compounds from the same ingredients. Physically it seems pretty similar too. Put lots of energy in to break everything apart and hope the bits come together in the right way with a means to carry off the excess energy (so the acids stay together)

Re:Haven't I seen this before?

[smoondog]

The spark-chamber experiments simulated conditions on earth. Warm, wet with an atmosphere.

The original Miller-Urey showed that the basic components could be formed in a reducing environment containing some basic gasses/liquids (ammonia, CO2, etc) with repeating spark catalyst. It is the reducing environment that the is key here ...

=Sean

Re:Haven't I seen this before?

[RobertFisher]

The big difference here is that the conditions were taken to be solid ices (ammonia, etc.), whereas in the Miller-Urey experiment, the conditions were taken to be typical of primordinal planetary atmospheres. Astronomers believe such ices commonly form around dust grains in molecular clouds in interstellar space, which are known to act as catalysts for many other types of molecules. Naturally, the densities of the gases and liquids in the Miller-Urey experiment vastly exceed those in interstellar space by many orders of magnitude.

Now, even though it is novel to see amino acids under such conditions, we should hasten before we leap to any conclusions related to life on Earth or other planets. Dust grains live a very harsh life, even in relatively cold, dense molecular clouds. And then every so often, a shock passes by and will tend to strip the grains of their mantles. Finally, if they survive all of that, they may eventually make their way into a protoplanetary nebula around a star, get smacked together to form protoplanets, and eventually planets like the Earth. It is most unlikely that volatile organic molecules would survive that process. On the other hand, they could be incorporated into comets in the outer reaches of stellar systems, and survive relatively intact, though again subject to the harsh conditions of space.

Bob

Re:Haven't I seen this before?

[Phleg]

Now, even though it is novel to see amino acids under such conditions, we should hasten before we leap to any conclusions related to life on Earth or other planets. Dust grains live a very harsh life, even in relatively cold, dense molecular clouds. And then every so often, a shock passes by and will tend to strip the grains of their mantles. Finally, if they survive all of that, they may eventually make their way into a protoplanetary nebula around a star, get smacked together to form protoplanets, and eventually planets like the Earth. It is most unlikely that volatile organic molecules would survive that process. On the other hand, they could be incorporated into comets in the outer reaches of stellar systems, and survive relatively intact, though again subject to the harsh conditions of space.

While the part about their harsh conditions is true, there is still an enormous chance for the survival of these dust grains. This is why meteors that strike the Earth contain a veritable wealth of amino acids. If what you said was correct, we would be hard-pressed to find anything in the chunks of space-rock.

Not only do the amino acids survive the rough conditions of space, but they also survive the harrowing trip through our atmosphere, which I think says something.

Re:Haven't I seen this before?

[searleb]

For more information on Miller and prebiotic Earth, here is a quotation from an Angew. Chem. review article by Kay Severin called Hot Stones or Cold Soup? New Investigations on the Endogenous Origin of Organic Compounds on Earth (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 2000, 39, No. 20). It pretty much sums up the Miller reactions, why they're wrong, and what people think now:

"The most famous experiment ... was carried out almost fifty years ago by Stanley L. Miller, at that time a PhD student in the group of Harold Urey in Chicago. Miller was able to show that electric discharges in an atmosphere of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water led to the formation of significant amounts of various amino acids. Experiments of this kind were repeated in numerous variants. If reducing gases were employed mixtures of organic compounds of low molecular weight could be detected in many cases. This has led to the popular idea that the primordial ocean resembled a nutritious soup.

"But the possibility that earth once had a reducing atmosphere is questioned. A well known argument against it is the high photolability of methane and ammonia. Because a shielding layer of ozone was missing a high concentration of these gases is believed to be unlikely. Furthermore, several other results point to a neutral atmosphere of CO2 and N2. Given the fact that the atmosphere was based on an unproductive mixture of CO2 and N2 the nutritional value of the primordial ocean drops significantly.

"An alternative scenario has been propagated for several years by [Gunter] Wachterhauser. Instead of a primordial soup he favors hot minerals as the place where organic molecules were initially built as life subsequently emerged. Especially sulfur-containing minerals like pyrite are proposed to have acted as an energy source and catalyst both under the extreme conditions found in hydrothermal or volcanic vents."

Basically, primordial soup syntheses (like Miller's reactions) are out and hot rock syntheses are in. These hot rock procedures have much much much lower yields, but people are slowly figuring out how to build amino acids through them. For instance, people, headed by Wachterhauser, have figured out how to carbon fixate (condense) carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide into organic building blocks for amino acids. For instance, in early 2000, Chen and Bahnemann were able to convert CO2 and water to small organics (acetaldehyde, ethanol, acetic acid) at high pressures and temperatures. Similarly, people have figured out how to take amino acids and convert them into peptides under high temperature and pressure situations.

However, to date no one has been able to actually make an amino acid through these techniques. As a result, the proof that amino acids were delivered by comets or meteorites (true fact, this is not an x-file) and now space dust, becomes much more appealing. Once the building blocks arrived on Earth, these hot rock syntheses could have taken over.

Re:Haven't I seen this before?

[zevans]

These hot rock procedures have much much much lower yields, but people are slowly figuring out how to build amino acids through them.

Amazingly, the amino acids figured out how to build people several million years ago.

Re:Haven't I seen this before?

[Anonymous Coward]

The above post should should be modded up... the Miller experiment was interesting, but even Miller has conceded that the chemicals used were meant to get a specific result and didn't reflect the chemical makeup of early earth as we now understand it.

The biggest problem with all these experiments (from my layman's understanding) is that in conditions such as those generated by Miller, or those thought to occur near geothermal vents under special conditions, is that equal numbers of right-hand and left-hand amino acids are produced. To build something self-replicating out of this soup requires more than just dumb luck, it requires that these be separated and like kinds assembled. The odds against this are beyond astronomical.

We rule out intelligent design because God doesn't fit in a test tube or jump through hoops of our design on command. So what's left? Life that's so terribly improbable that it's no wonder that SETI listens but does not hear.

Life from inanimate matter, and a universe that exploded out of nothing. Sounds like religion, doesn't it?

Re:Haven't I seen this before?

[alcmena]

Not to get into a religion debate, but here is a quick lesson on simple statistics.

Say, for example, the changes of life forming through random luck on an object (be it planet, asteroid, comet, whatever) are 1,000,000,000,000,000:1. If there are 1,000,000,000,000,000 objects out there, then life will have likely formed on at least one of them.

It's a lot like a lottery. You can point to someone who won and say, "The odds against you winning are beyond astronomical," but that doesn't change the fact that he or she did. Just like you can point to the Earth and say, "The odds against life forming on its own are beyond astronomical," but again, that does not mean that it didn't.

Re:Haven't I seen this before?

[mofolotopo]

Life from inanimate matter, and a universe that exploded out of nothing. Sounds like religion, doesn't it?


No, because it offers testable hypotheses and predictions. It doesn't require faith, it only requires an open, intelligent mind and a willingness to learn without prejudice.

Re:Haven't I seen this before?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, if memory serves, both the reaction that creates amino acids and the reaction that joins amino acids form H2O as a byproduct.

The reactions are reversible. They also energetically favor the reverse direction (breaking down polypeptide chains into amino acids or even breaking down amino acids)

So whadya get when you have all this occuring in an ocean, where there are TRILLIONS of H2O molecules on the right hand side of the equation? Equilibrium sez that although some amino acids and polypeptide chains may be formed, they'll probably (almost) instantly go back to their original products.

Maybe the oceans weren't a "soup" of amino acids and polypeptides after all?

Re:Haven't I seen this before?

[Warped-Reality]

It requires faith in one's own intellect and reason. If your theory isn't proven, doesn't it require faith the belive in it?

Re:Haven't I seen this before?

[Avatar1000]

Actually - it doesn't require faith in your own (or any single persons) intelligence and/or reason; that is what 'Peer Reveiw' is for. And before we all hear the endless "Worldwide conspiracy of entrenched scientist" garbage, or the "it's just a theory- it hasn't been PROVEN because nobody was there to see" whine, let me clarify something: Science never proves anything - because its all about dis-proof. You start with a theory (for example, the Earth is flat, has corners where angels stand, is covered at night by a big blue-blacky dome thing with little glowy bits stuck on, was created in 168 hours from nothingness, and there ISN'T a 'rest of the universe' out there...) and (after living with it for more than a thousand years) begin testing the bits you can reach. Where the theory fails you have to find a better explanation (Hmmm.. OK, so the Earth isn't flat - maybe it's a cylinder... or a sphere....) after a remarkably short two or three hundred years you start getting to 'Alright, so the universe isn't static...'.
Summary: Science - and science funding - is about finding ways to test theories, and every time a standing theory fails it creates a lot of fame, fortune, and funding for the folks who figured out what is actually going on. Nowadays, it is largely a matter of degree ("Hey, that's not the mass of an electron! Look - I've found a way to measure it to two decimal places more accuracy!") because what we have left un-disproven is the results of many very highly trained and motivated individuals trying their hardest to find a way to make the theory fail. (Thankfully, in High Energy Physics there are signs that the Standard model will finally crumble)
It takes very little faith to believe that scientific theory X is still accurate to Nth degree because all alternative theories are less credible. And there is NO WAY that theory X is just going to roll over and die without a struggle, just because some crackpot has dusted off a centuries old, long discredited superstition and dressed it up in fancy new duds. (Discard Orbital Mechanics in favor of a Geocentric model of the universe? Sorry, no, and I really don't care what manner of numerological quackery it is couched in...)

Sorry - it's gotten late and I probably wandered there a bit. Hope the points came through despite my muddled writing. Signing off..

Why?

[geek]

This is mildly cool, but honestly it's done all the time by companies like TwinLab who sell them to body builders in little glass jars.

Why bother growing them in space when you can bring them with you? Sounds like NASA is taking the long way around.

Re:Why?

[soulsteal]

It's not about use with space exploration. It's about being prepared for what's to come during said exploration. If amino acids can form in deep space, then the conditions might also be right for things like proteins to assemble. Basic building blocks of life could be right around the celestial corner. They could even be leading to life forms.

I'm just hoping there's nothing out there that demands that we call it Xenu\Linux.

Re:Why?

[56ker]

It's not to do with space exploration it's to do with answering the question, "Are we alone in the universe?" - and the question that stems from that which is "If we aren't alone, how common/ widespread is life?"

NASA?

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA should be disbanded. They are wasting tons of money that could be used elsewhere, "discovering" things like this, which have absolutely no relevance to our daily life.

Re:NASA?

[cscx]

So, like, what has more relevance to our daily life? Writing "free" software? People like you are a human wasteland. You make me puke.

Re:NASA?

[zagy]

The money isn't wastet. The scientists (and all the other ppl around there) get the money. And if the pay thousands for a pice of electronic, some body has to build it. Since even scientists need sth to eat etc. they spend the money say to the pizza boy -- and what would the pizza boy do, if there were no NASA scientists. ;-)

Re:NASA?

[Shao Ke]

Hmmm, I wonder how many of some of the things we consider indispensable to modern life and commerce came as a result of NASA and "irrelevant" research in general.
Although I agree that it seems like there are more pressing issues here on Earth...I bet you were one of the kids who was always whining about having to learn math.

I can create them here

[Anonymous Coward]

I can create them there.
I can create them anywhere!

I will not evolve them in a house
I will not evolve them with a mouse
I do not like space genes of man
I do not like them Sam I am.

Alien Life

[ziggy_zero]

Yeah, so does this make more likely that we'll find extraterrestrial intelligences? I mean, we can't restrict out searches to just planets now.

Another blow against creationists

[CmdrTaco (editor)]

I think this is proof against one of the arguments creationist wackos have been making for quite a long time. They always ask how can life be created out of nothing.. I seem to remember reading a while ago that another scientist conducted an experiment in which he applied electricity to a sort of cocktail of chemicals and he also managed to create amino acids- though admitedly this was not in a vacuum. Can't find a link, unfortunately.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[Anonymous Coward]

Their answer would be that God created the ice.

This disproves nothing.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[Anonymous Coward]

the Bibble states that the earth was created in 6 days. Life was created on the Xth day, humans were created on the Yth day and there is no mention of ice in outer space.

The Bibble is the word of god and is the absolute truth if you like fairy tales.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[Llywelyn]

Prefix: I am not a Creationist.

"I think this is proof against one of the arguments creationist wackos have been making for quite a long time"

Actually this does nothing of the sort.

What this shows is that the basic components of life--Amino Acids--/can/ be generated in a deep space environment. Whoop de do. The argument against abiogenisis (chemical evolution) stems from the following:

1) Probability versus chance of creating functional proteins. We don't know what this is, but we do know that it is incredibly small. The probability is so small, in fact, that no number of trials that could have occurred within the lifespan of the universe would be sufficient.

2) The number of mutations it takes to create a functional allele (what gives us different characteristics) is a *massive* number. The number of mutations it takes to make a functional allele "nonfunctional" is *one*.

3) It takes millions of mutations to create a hox gene. The number it takes to take one out is *trivial* by comparison.

This does not make the creationist argument correct, but it doesn't mean that this evidence of where Amino Acids can or cannot form lends credence to abiogenesis to the degree or diversity of life that we see.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never heard of the Bibble. If you mean the Bible, then you are right. There's no mention of ice at all. Do you think that we don't think there is\was ice on the earth?

Re:Another blow against creationists

[Kaiwen]

creationist wackos ... always ask how can life be created out of nothing.

Not really. Creationists invented the idea -- creatio ex nihilo, it's called, the belief that God created everything from nothing. It's the evolutionary theories that require prior material to work with.

In any case, scientists have been creating amino acids in laboratory settings for decades. Amino acids are not life; merely a requisit building block for it. Scientists still have not managed to create life in a test tube. When they do, then you can wave it in the creationists' faces.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[Anonymous Coward]

Probability versus chance of creating functional proteins. We don't know what this is, but we do know that it is incredibly small. The probability is so small, in fact, that no number of trials that could have occurred within the lifespan of the universe would be sufficient.

IANAC/E (I am not a creationist or evolutionist)

You will find many well respected scientists who will dispute the argument that the universe isn't old enough to have allowed enough possible combinations to occur to create functioning proteins...

Re:Another blow against creationists

[alargeduck]

"Scientists still have not managed to create life in a test tube. When they do, then you can wave it in the creationists' faces."

No you wont. If scientists manage to create amino acids, or life in a test environment, you will have proven creation not evolution. Notice what you said - "Scientists still have not managed to create life." In essence, the scientists are then the trancendent entity that created life. You cannot prove Darwinist theory by means of an experiment, because the scientists will then be "god."

Re:Another blow against creationists

[Llywelyn]

None of which can cite their reasons--it is a matter of faith for the scientific community that such is true. I have yet to see one actually work with the probabilities involved and not either:

1) Have an error in the calculations or assumptions.

2) Come up with the opposite conclusion.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[Razor Sex]

It is ridiculous to debate the existence of evolution today. We see it all around us, with bacteria and such becoming resistant to antibiotics. The fossil record supports it, genetics supports it, as does virtually every other realm of science. But as per your #1 comment, particularly the last bit, is bull. In some bacteria, generations can be measured in seconds, or less. Within a few generations - a few seconds - they can evolve to become resistant or immune to antibiotics or certain bacteriophages. Life on Earth is said to have began around 4, to some estimates as far back as 5, billion years ago. I'm not going to calculate how many seconds there are in 4 billion years, but it's quite a lot. Just one bacterium producing just one offspring for that entire timespan would probably be in the hundreds of trillions, perhaps more. But that's not the way it works, is it? Multiply that by a hundred billion for every member of that species. All of them mutating, evolving, etc. I don't even know the name for that number. Then consider how many entities there are on Earth. It multiples, and multiplies, and multiplies, again and again and again. As per 2, couldn't it also be said that it only takes one gene to create a functional allele from a nonfunctional one? But taking away a gene doesn't always destroy a nonfunctional allele. It sometimes makes a variation, a mutation, that works. And that is how evolution works. As per 3, see 1. There are uncountable multiples of a million right there. Also, your whole post can be discredited based upon the fact that you know not what abiogenesis means. Abiogenesis is the spontaneous formation of life from a primordial soup. Not evolution. Abiogenesis is not factual, but it holds a great deal more credence than creationism, or any other theory for that matter. But evolution, sir, is an empirical fact.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[alargeduck]

2 Peter 3:8 - "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

Basically, god transcends time, thus those 6 days genesis refers to dont have to be 24 hours each. Each day could be 1000 years, or 1 million years, or whatever other figure you want to use.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else find this bit interesting:

"These simulations are quite accurate reproductions of the dense cloud interstellar environment"

How do they know? Its not like we've sent a probe or anything. Does anyone know if their assumptions about the conditions inside an interstellar cloud is accurate or not, how are these estimations achieved?

It reminds me of when carbon dating was first introduced, everyone was certain of carbon levels over time, thus followed much flag waving at creationists (I won't comment on this behaviour, but I would have thought proving the science would have been a more important aspect then one-upping creationists). We are now several "revisions" into the theory of carbon dating in the past. Anyone else ammused that prediction of levels over say a thousand years suddenly make someone confident without a doubt of one the levels were _billions_ of years ago.

I think there enough zealots on both sides.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[Phleg]

Prefix: I am not a Creationist.

"I think this is proof against one of the arguments creationist wackos have been making for quite a long time"

Actually this does nothing of the sort.

I think it does. He's not saying it will prove or disprove creationism, but merely shatter a crutch that they rely on. I can't tell you how many countless arguments I've gotten into with creationists where they fall back on, "Well, we haven't figured out how to make amino acids. So nyeh."

Re:Another blow against creationists

[Anonymous Coward]

"The probability is so small, in fact, that no number of trials that could have occurred within the lifespan of the universe would be sufficient."

Since when did probability become additive? If the lifespan of the universe were a nanosecond, an ocurrence could still happen in that nanosecond regardless of the improbabiilty. All it takes is one trial.

Btw, KFC called, would you like your argument back in extra crispy or original?

Re:Another blow against creationists

[On Lawn]

It is ridiculous to debate the existence of evolution today.

Somehow I doubt that will stop you from doing it anyway.

We see it all around us, with bacteria and such becoming resistant to antibiotics. The fossil record supports it, genetics supports it, as does virtually every other realm of science.

Congradulations. You slayed a strawman by lumping several different empirical datasets that record several different kinds of changes in several different kinds of organisms into one very vague term, "evolution". Empiricaly all one can probably grasp from that is that things change, but I suppose that doesn't stop you from reaching for so much more.

In some bacteria, generations can be measured in seconds, or less. Within a few generations - a few seconds - they can evolve to become resistant or immune to antibiotics or certain bacteriophages.

Bacteria have many mechanisms to support change, mostly from incorprating or jumping genes more than random "mutation", but that isn't important now. The poster is pointing out the statistical probability of the random production of the building blocks of life. Since it is not alive, it does not take advantage of the intelligent (although not entirely controlled) gene splicing that Bacteria and viruses use to propegate changes.

Life on Earth is said to have began around 4, to some estimates as far back as 5, billion years ago.

Again, I think you jumped off the mark early and throught your post. He's talking about the mechanisms that existed to create life, not change it.

As per 2, couldn't it also be said that it only takes one gene to create a functional allele from a nonfunctional one?

Here is another example of over-reaching pseudo-science. This is not a symetrical relation between a one-away allele and a functional allele. Assuming that a non-functioning allele is one gene away from functioning, the probability of out of all the random gene changes that it occurs is astronomicaly low. However, the likely hood out of all the possible changes of making a change in a functioning alelle to render it non-functioning actually pretty high.

But taking away a gene doesn't always destroy a nonfunctional allele. It sometimes makes a variation, a mutation, that works. And that is how evolution works.

I've not seen any flying pigs over Chernobyl, super-humans, or new species for that matter. As was brought to my attention long ago on Slashdot, there have never been any observed beneficial random mutations. Subjecting thousands on thousands of grasshoppers to radiation never once produced a beneficial mutation. Changes occur, and mutations occur, but only when they occur along certain natural laws do they produce a limited beneficial result. Check out the "Observed Speciation" page and with some luck you'll find out what the common thread is.

Now, lets end this with my favorite non-sequiter...

Also, your whole post can be discredited based upon the fact that you know not what abiogenesis means. Abiogenesis is the spontaneous formation of life from a primordial soup. Not evolution. Abiogenesis is not factual, but it holds a great deal more credence than creationism, or any other theory for that matter. But evolution, sir, is an empirical fact.

Yet the person you are disagreeing with (as far as I can tell) was talking about the [p]robability versus chance of creating functional proteins. . Sounds like he understood quite well.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[dadragon]

Okay, by some estimates, life on earth began 4-5 billion years ago.

Now, for the sake of argument, assume that to God 1 day = 1 billion human years.

God started with a "formless and empty" earth. He then proceeded to creat life in 6 days..

That's 6 billion years. Close to 5, eh?

Re:Another blow against creationists

[alargeduck]

The days dont have to be the same length at all. I believe what 2 Peter 3:8 is saying is that to god there is no sense of continuity in time. Try not to think of the "days" as distinct amounts of time, but rather as individual steps, or stages.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine there's no heaven.
It's easy if you try.
No hell below us,
Above us only sky.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[phil reed]

As was brought to my attention long ago on Slashdot, there have never been any observed beneficial random mutations.

And whoever said that then is as wrong as you repeating it now. Plenty of beneficial mutations have been observed. Simple example: a bacteria evolving resistance to a drug is certainly beneficial to the bacteria.

More complex example: there's a cluster of people in rural Italy that have developed a gene that gives them dramatically lower cholesterol levels, thus improving their health. Analysis of genological records show that this cluster are all descended from one person, born about 150 years ago. That person evidently got what can only be considered a beneficial mutation from one of this parents.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[Kaiwen]

If scientists manage to create amino acids, or life in a test environment, you will have proven creation not evolution.

I'm not sure. If science manages to create a very artificial environment within which they're somehow able to coax life into existence then, yes, you might be right. But if if it can be demonstrated that those were precisely the conditions and circumstances that existed on a primordial earth, I'm not sure I agree. In that case, scientists would not be creating artificial conditions, simply carefully reproducing conditions that had already occurred naturally.

In essence, the scientists are then the trancendent entity that created life.

The problem is we needed to use the word "create" with greater precision. "Creation" can be understood in two senses: 1) creatio ex nihilo, or creation by fiat from nothing. And 2) a derivative creation, in which something is created from previously existing materials. Human beings are masters of the latter; only God is capbable of the former.

Assuming humans eventually succeed in producing life by reproducing the conditions under which it (presumably spontaneously) originated doesn't de facto disprove intelligent design. Scientists are not trying to disprove God; they're simply trying to better understand the conditions and processes that led to the emergence of life.

I suspect that once science manages to create life, we'll simply be right back at ground zero in the whole creationist debate. Non-theistic evolutionists will claim they've disproven God. Creationists and theistic evolutionists will continue to argue that reproducing the primordial conditions does not in itself prove that those conditions could have arisen as simply a product of chance plus time. I.e., that we've simply managed to reproduce conditions and processes which required the direction of an Intelligence.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[phil reed]

Correction: it wasn't 150 years ago, it was 220 years ago. His name was Giovanni Pomaroli. A popularized account of the research may be found here.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[kperrier]

And whoever said that then is as wrong as you repeating it now. Plenty of beneficial mutations have been observed. Simple example: a bacteria evolving resistance to a drug is certainly beneficial to the bacteria.

So, a bacteria, for example e-coli, mutates to develop a resistace to antibiotics is becomes a new species of bacteria? After all, evolution is the transition from one species to another. apes -> human....

Kent

Re:Another blow against creationists

[phil reed]

After all, evolution is the transition from one species to another.

Not quite. Bacteria developing drug resistance is indeed evolution, since evolution is strictly defined as changes in alleles (genes) in a population over time. Enough evolution over time can result in a new species - this is called (no suprprise here) speciation, which has also been observed in the lab and in the wild. But evolution is not directly equal to speciation.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[On Lawn]

Plenty of beneficial mutations have been observed.

Peace my paranoid friend, no one is arguing that there have been no beneficial changes to genetic code. You can save your energy on that strawman.

However, evidence shows that there are rules guiding those changes as brought about by jumping gene, gene survival and other theories, and by every-day live occurances like the existance of heterogeneous-sexes and their reproduction. Changes happen becuase it is built into the genetic code for them to happen. Rarely if at all (and never observed) have random mutations produced outside of these procedures been beneficial.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[KalvinB]

"They always ask how can life be created out of nothing."

They're just curious if scientists can do it out of nothing like they believe God did. The question isn't "how can life come out of nothing?" it's "how can life come out of nothing without the help of intelligence?"

And then they're even more curious as whether or not it can happen without science (intelligence) taking a part in it. This experiment doesn't prove that anything came from nothing anyway, since there was plenty of something that was used to create. It's a nice experiment but it doesn't prove anything you'd like to think it does.

Ben

Re:Another blow against creationists

[JetJaguar]

I don't have the references handy, but IIRC, recently a whole class of organic, self-replicating molecules has been found, and they aren't that hard to make under the conditions most scientists believe the primordial earth had. The argument posited is that these simple molecules could easily have been the chemical starting point, eg. there was enough raw material for these molecules to form, and to reproduce themselves. They also have a relatively high probability of mutation and some of those mutations are non-destructive...

Now, they may not be functional proteins, nor DNA, or even genes, but it sounds like these molecules just might be the chemical starting point.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[Anonymous Coward]

The difficulty with the argument against abiogenisis as articulated in your post (and by sophisticated creationists) is that the probabilities are forensically analyzed...I agree that this particular piece of evidence (i.e. amino acids existing in a deep space environment) does not discredit the probability argument often cited by creationists...however, let's calculate the probability that an omniscient and omnipresent being exists.....kind of makes abiogenisis look like simple arithmetic.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[Anonymous Coward]

Creationists don't debate the existence of microevolution, it is quite apparent.

We debate the concept of at least abiogenesis, and usually macroevolution.

1. microevolution is now pretty obvious... but this poses no threat to creationism. As a creationist I have no trouble believing that organisms can adapt and evolve based on their environment.

2. macroevolution is still only in theory with all the transitionals not quite figured out. When you give me a ape and compare it to man and say "AH-HA!", you haven't told me shit. Evolutions need to focus a few billion years back and figure in all the transitional species back then before they even Consider absurd (not absurd in concept but absurd based on incomplete evidence from billions of years before apes existed) theories like neanderthals and what not. In fact, before they even do that, they need to focus on #3 below

3. abiogenesis, well, who the hell knows so far. Have a long way to go here. Evolutionists are barely moving along here, and the fact is this is the most important one to complete their theory. You can completely toss out evolution if you can't figure out abiogenesis. Some have estimated that the chances of a single cell being formed are something like 1 in 10^440. Mind you the estimates for total electron count for the universe are something like 10^48. I won't even get into the chances of multiple "beneficial" mutations in the exact same nucleus, required for that cell to become a new one. And have they thought about multi-celled organisms much? My body has something like 10 trillion cells that all are there for a purpose and work together to form a multiple organ system. Any explanation for that phenonmenon? Of course not, they still haven't figured out abiogenesis.

Slow down, this is no "blow" to creationists.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that says a whole lot. Even DNA is unbelievably more complex than just a molecule. Didn't I hear that you could fit all of the information on the internet on the head of a nail if it were written in DNA?

Re:Another blow against creationists

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if any creationists were concerned with calculating the probably of an omni* being existing that would contradict our entire argument now wouldn't it? The basis of our argument is that you don't and you Can't "calculate probabilities" and other bs like that about an eternal being because you put a limitation on it and the entire idea is that the way the limited environment that exists now can exist is that there is one thing that is Not limited. So, we don't try to "calculate" God or whatever.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you have to admit it was outside the experiences of petty warring tribes of wandering desert bandits and their ignorant 'holy' Seers. Not too amazing that it didn't make it into their myths.

Big deal

[avandesande]

Amino acids, so what? I will be excited when the explain how amino acids assemble themselves into something as complex as DNA.

Re:Big deal

[smoondog]

Amino acids, so what? I will be excited when the explain how amino acids assemble themselves into something as complex as DNA.

So would I. Perhaps you should read your own signature. Nucleic acids assemble to DNA; amino acids make proteins.

-Sean

Re:Big deal

[0xB]

So will the rest of the scientific community!
Amino acids are the component parts of proteins, not DNA.

Re:Big deal

[avandesande]

Thanks for your help. The point is the same with proteins.

Re:Big deal

[yardgnome]

Nope. The point is gone. Proteins are just lots of amino acids, connected by single bonds. The hard part is getting all those constituent atoms to form into the relatively complex amino acids. Then just string the amino acids along and see what you get. True, getting functional proteins that can actually (for example) catalyze a chemical reaction is pretty unlikely when you're just randomly creating proteins by strining aa's together. But remember, not only do you you have most of the history of the universe in which to do it in, but these results suggest that the reactions can take place within most of the area of the universe (ie - deep space). That's a LOT of time, and a LOT of area. It makes me wonder why there isn't MORE life out there, actually.

Re:Big deal

[avandesande]

uh, the points still there. What would you be more impressed with, nasa's little carbon copy experiment which was demonstrated in the 50's with electric arcs, or someone actually synthesizing a biologically important protein from scratch, by any means.

Re:Big deal

[spike hay]

Amino acids don't make DNA. Amino acids make protein. Check your facts.

Here is how protein is made:

Base pairs (adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine) self-assemble into DNA. If you put base pairs together, they will assemble, all completely by themselves. Base pairs are 2 bases (adenine and thymine, or guanine and cytosine) connected to eachother by hydrogen bonds. These base pairs are connected to other base pairs by alternating deroxyribose and phosphates.

Now, BTW, I haven't mentioned this important bit: DNA and RNA are divided into sections called codons. These are 3 base pairs that code for a particular protein.

DNA can catylise single-stranded mRNA. The DNA splits, and an RNA molecule forms on each strand of DNA. RNA is the same as DNA except it is single stranded and instead of Thymine it has Uricil. Now when the RNA molecule forms on the DNA, it makes a perfect anti-copy of the DNA.

They split, and the 2 single DNA strands recombine. Then the mirror-image mRNA binds to tRNA codons, and this creates a perfect copy of the original DNA, at least in respect to protein coding.

Now, if you have digested that, I will talk about how the protein is actually made:

Now the tRNA is at the ribosome, which is the protein manufacturing organelle of a cell.

Amino acids from around the cell then bind to their respective corresponding codons. This eventualy forms a protein chain. All our DNA does is make protein. That is how all life is made.

Re:Big deal

[searleb]

Nope. The point is gone. Proteins are just lots of amino acids, connected by single bonds. The hard part is getting all those constituent atoms to form into the relatively complex amino acids.

As a protein/organic chemist, I say to you: why don't you try making that single bond? It's quite hard when you don't have a ribosome to do all the work for you.

Stanley Miller has been making amino acids (granted, the wrong way) since 1955. And he didn't even have his doctorate yet. Raw amino acids are easy- what's difficult is selecting the proper stereochemistry (amino acids have mirror images which are chemically identical but structurally different- life only uses one of the two mirror images (enantiomers)). If you condense the wrong enantiomer, or both enantiomers simultaneously, you get garbage out. Same problem with nucleic acids to DNA. In the end, this report is plagued with the same problems that Stanley Miller faced in 1955, sorry kids, deep space (or almost every other non-biological natural chemical synthesis) doesn't care about symmetry.

If you're interested in a brief history of Miller, why he's wrong, and what we think now, see my other post.

Re:Big deal

[searleb]

However, recent research suggests that there is an excess of L-amino acids (the specific enantiomer used in life-proteins) in amino acids found in space, which further suggests that the shuttling of amino acids from space via meteorites and comets could have led to pre-biotic proteins on planet Earth.

From the article:
Recently it has been discovered that an excess of L-amino acids is present in the Murchison and Murray meteorites indicating that a preference for L-amino acids existed in solar system material before there was life on Earth. This supports an idea, first proposed by Rubenstein et al. (1983, Nature 306, 118), for an extraterrestrial origin for homochirality.

In this model the action of circular polarized light on interstellar chiral molecules introduced a left handed excess into molecules in the material from which the solar system formed. ...

If our own solar system formed in such a region of high circular polarization, it could have led to the excess of L-amino acids which we see in meteorites and to the homochirality of biological molecules. It is possible that without such a process operating it would not be possible for life to start. This may have implications for the frequency of occurrence of life in the universe.

Re:Big deal

[phil reed]

In the end, this report is plagued with the same problems that Stanley Miller faced in 1955, sorry kids, deep space (or almost every other non-biological natural chemical synthesis) doesn't care about symmetry.

Did you read the link about chirality? They address this very issue off the "more questions" page. Here is the link.

Re:Big deal

[yardgnome]

You seem to have missed the point. NASA's experiment was by no means a carbon copy. The original Miller-Urey experiment was in a simulated atmosphere with electric arcs. The NASA experiment was in simulated DEEP SPACE, with radiation. It's the difference between an early earth-like environment and the depths of the universe. If you really think the two are similar, then I guess moving your house to deep space wouldn't be much of an inconvenience, eh?

I can tell from your comments that you don't understand science well. Or at the very least, you're a Popular Scientist that thinks they know everything about science. Well, I'm sorry, but science doesn't work the way you want it to. Discoveries proceed by increments, not by leaps and bounds. Sure, I'd be impressed if someone synthesized a biologically important protein from scratch. But I'd also be INCREDIBLY doubtful, since it would mean the researchers ignored all the preliminary work that needed to be done and just jumped in randomly.

You keep thinking of proteins as millions of chemical bonds, which they are. But behind those millions of chemical bonds are amino acids, which are themselves about 20-30 bonds. So this NASA experiment shows that those relatively complex 20-30 bond components can be made in deep space. After that, just use a single bond to string them together. Do that enough times, and you've got a protein. Maybe not a functional protein, but a protein nonetheless. Repeat billions and billions of times over the history/area of the universe, and maybe you'll end up with something useful.

Re:Big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, sorry. Amino acids are part of DNA, along with ribose and phosphate groups adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine are 4 specific amino acids that make up DNA

Come on

[GigsVT]

Do we really need to waste time "competing" with religion to "prove" evolution?

Why can't we concentrate on science that matters. If they want to believe some fairy tale about a magical man with a long white beard that had a busy week, let them!

Re:Come on

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh Please. If you're going to flame my religion, at least get the facts straight. Santa only needs one busy night to get his work done, not a week! Sheesh.

Re:Come on

[GigsVT]

Oh, crap, I always get those two mixed up!

"God is my favorite fictional character!" --Homer Simpson

Re:Come on

[Anonymous Coward]

But how do you know you're right? Do you just take faith in it?

Re:Come on

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, forget all this magic man bullshit, we all know that the world was actually created from a gigantic explosion (let's call this the "big bang")

Re:Come on

[ptet]

Right, forget all this magic man bullshit, we all know that the world was actually created from a gigantic explosion (let's call this the "big bang")

Well, the scientific evidence points to what we call a "big bang"... We don't know what was around before that...

So, we don't need "faith" (in the religious sense) to believe in the big bang - or other natural processes supported by evidence, such as evolution.

On the other hand, faith *is* required to believe in "the magic man" or whatever other creation myth tickles your fancy.

Great trick, but I won't be impressed...

[Robber Baron]

Until they under the same conditions:
1) create a protein
2) create a cell
3) make it a living cell.

Also notice that the headline used the word created?

Re:Great trick, but I won't be impressed...

[GigsVT]

created?

Nothing is created or destroyed, at least I don't think we have found anything basic that is yet (matter, energy, etc). So far the universe has been pretty zero sum.

Of course, if I bake a cake, I created the cake. If simulate a natural environment, and a cake forms, I have a pretty good arugment that cakes can form spontaneously in nature.

Re:Great trick, but I won't be impressed...

[cDarwin]

There are numerous groups working toward the synthesis of de novo single-celled organisms. I can't wait to hear the creationist-back-pedalling when they meet your three above-stated criteria. What will you resort to then?

Re:Great trick, but I won't be impressed...

[Phleg]

My god, what is it with you people? Every time science makes a step, you say you won't be impressed until we create our own little terrarium of Bernie Goetz's out of moldy potato chips.

What you neglect to realize is that we keep coming closer to discovering the beginnings of life every day.

First we think evolution may explain our development. Understandably, many people were questionable. Then we start figuring out how these leaps could have been made. Not good enough yet, so we explain, and demonstrate, how the leaps can be made on a macroscopic level (please refer to previous /. story). Still not good enough? Now we've managed to create amino acids from the same conditions the Earth was in while it was forming.

Can't you see that you're clinging to a defense that's being, not whittled away, but lopped off in huge blocks almost every month? Save yourself some goddamned face, already.

Re:Great trick, but I won't be impressed...

[fishapple]

Who says life started out as protiens and cells? Most biologists these days think it started out as something far simpler, perhaps just a few molecules capable of replicating themselves.

Also notice that the headline used the word created?

The right conditions (which happen to be quite common in deep space) were created (simulated?), and the amino acids formed.

I'm fairly impressed by this, it seems like quite a blow to all of the creationist's arguments against a natural origin for life.

Re:Great trick, but I won't be impressed...

[rde]

There's no pleasing some people. Let's examine your three criteria for impressiveness...

Protein. Yeah, that'd be cool. But a protein is a string of amino acids. Chances are if you've got zillions of the buggers zipping around inside a gas cloud billions of kilometres across, then proteins are probably above our heads as we speak. Sadly, I don't think the Ames research facility has that much space, nor the millions of years needed to simulate how it'd actually happen.

Cell . They've made buckyballs, which are cells for helium atoms. That do?

Living cell. Just be clear: you won't be impressed by any intermediate steps; you'll just sit up and take notice when they've created life? What then? You won't be amazed until they teach it to play the piano?

WRT 'create': I noticed. I didn't care. I never assumed that it meant that they'd made their acids from zero-point energy; I doubt anyone else did either.

Re:Great trick, but I won't be impressed...

[Razor Sex]

Seperating creationism from religion is the funniest thing I have ever heard. Check the Bible, Torah, Qur'ran, etc, sir. Thye all have - gasp! - creation stories. Creation science has to do with, as it's name implies, creationism, which has to do with God, but in a sci3%fc manner. God = religion. You're funny.

Re:Great trick, but I won't be impressed...

[cDarwin]

When they do *create* that single-celled organism, will they have proven evolution?

The manufacture of a de novo organism by human beings will simply provide further demonstration that divine influence is not necessary to explain the origin of life on earth.

Notice the key word there - "created." In essence, those scientists will be "god," and if anything, they will have disproven evolution.

The point here is not that these scientists are god(s), but that the existence of a god is not a prerequisite for the existence of life.

People seem to have the mindset that creationism = religion, and that anyone who argues creation rather than evolution is a religious zealot. I think its safe to say most aren't; I certainly am not. Creation science has nothing to do with religion.

What language would you use to characterize a person who clings to a notion despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Re:Great trick, but I won't be impressed...

[Anonymous Cowdog]

>Until they under the same conditions:
>1) create a protein
>2) create a cell
>3) make it a living cell.

One thing to keep in mind about that argument is that the earth's surface is around 509,600,000,000,000 square meters. Some significant fraction of these square meters would contain pools or patches of primordial soup, mud, or a nice combination of these, and from time to time some of them would exchange fluids. If you think of the emergence of life-supporting materials, leading to membranes, then a kind of, shall we say, embellished membranes, then to cells, then to life, as a brute force search, this many pools gives you a lot of processing power. Then you let the process run for a billion years or so; that is a lot of processing time.

Granted, you're not going to have Cleopatra springing perfectly formed out of one of these pools just as you reach the one billion year mark, but it's highly likely that something interesting will happen given all that time with all that parallel processing.

I think some people underestimate the significance of a billion years.

Re:Great trick, but I won't be impressed...

[norwoodites]

And that is why the Roman Catholic Church(the Pope) said that evolution is God's will.

Re:Great trick, but I won't be impressed...

[alargeduck]

de novo = latin for "of new" or from scratch or something along those lines I assume? Correct me if I'm wrong. "The manufacture of a de novo organism by human beings will simply provide further demonstration that divine influence is not necessary to explain the origin of life on earth." and "The point here is not that these scientists are god(s), but that the existence of a god is not a prerequisite for the existence of life." Perhaps not divine influence or god, but some sort of external intelligence in any case. "What language would you use to characterize a person who clings to a notion despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?" It sounds as if you are saying that there is "overwhelming evidence" that supports evolution, and I am "clinging" onto creation even in the face of that. I am not a creation zealot by any means, I'm not a religious person at all.

I don't see overwhelming evidence for evolution, but then again, there isnt any for creation either. Aren't there a lot of gaps in the line of fossils, the "missing links." Once that evidence is found, evolution will have a much stronger argument, but until that I dont really see any concrete evidence for either side.

Re:Great trick, but I won't be impressed...

[cDarwin]

Start here

Re:Great trick, but I won't be impressed...

[alargeduck]

From the review thinggy: "People are the products of an evolutionary history that leaves even their best- designed features, such as the eye, with bugs that any competent engineer would iron out."

That is an intresting thought. It is ofcourse true, the human body is far from perfect. So since god is perfect, humans could not have been created in his image.

I feel my previous comments have been somewhat misleading, im not so concerned with how and if humans evolved from monkeys, and how they evolved from whatever. What I am more intrested in is how life came about in the first place. My usage of the word "evolution" has been somewhat out of context. What I've been arguing is that some external, transcendent intelligent had to be there to start the ball rolling.

Whether monkeys are ancestors of humans is a whole seperate beast.

In anycase, this whole discussion is getting off topic. I'm tired and dont really know what to believe. I haven't seen any concrete evidence for either side. Ill run to the library when I get a chance and look into that book. I know there are books out by well educated biologists arguing the creationist side. I bet their arguments are just as convincing, but without tangible evidence (the "missing link"), its all a matter of faith really.

Re:Great trick, but I won't be impressed...

[MaxVlast]

Yea, and you'll really piss off the pastry chef's union.

Re:Great trick, but I won't be impressed...

[Paradise Pete]

and you'll really piss off the pastry chef's union.

That's right. And you don't know fear until you've seen a mob of angry guys in fluffy white hats coming at you.

Re:Great trick, but I won't be impressed...

[susano_otter]

It is ofcourse true, the human body is far from perfect.

Logically, your comment seems to parse out to:

(1) If there is a Designer, it is either
(a) Incompetent
or
(b) Using a yet-undiscovered value system for judging successful designs
(2) It is impossible that the Designer is incompetent.
(3) Therefore, if there is a Designer, we have not yet understood its design.

How, exactly, is the human body "far from perfect"? You mention the human eye as an example of something "with bugs that any competent engineer would iron out". What bugs are these? How would they be ironed out? What, pray tell, are the efficiency tradeoffs you would have to make to eliminate these bugs? Where is your proof that this "bug-free" design would be better optimized for the stated design goal?

Come to think of it, what is the stated design goal?

Not to mention the possibility that the stated design goal wasn't similitude of physical forms at all. Do we say "the only true AI is the AI whose physical form accurately mimics our own"? Of course not: the AI we're looking for will mimic our thought processes. Its physical form will be incidental.

And that's just a reasonable, logical approach to your arguments, without resorting to blind faith or rabid zealotry.

Re:Great trick, but I won't be impressed...

[mikecarrmikecarr]

Nothing is created or destroyed, at least I don't think we have found anything basic that is yet (matter, energy, etc). So far the universe has been pretty zero sum.

What about singularities (i.e. black holes)? (Interested readers see http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html #q1)

or...

If you believe in the ``Big Bang'' model as conventionally proposed (seems that the majority of non-Physics majors do) then how do you explain the presence of `dark matter' in the Universe? It had to come from somewhere and if it didn't exist before the Universe was created then, by definition, it had to be created afterwards. (Interested readers see http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/ukdmc/dark_matter/galactic_ dm.html)

Re:Great trick, but I won't be impressed...

[GigsVT]

I think all those are interesting theories, but really, in the end they are just speculation. The Big Bang isn't something we can recreate under controlled circumstances, neither is a black hole (yet). As far as science goes, they are pretty weak. Maybe astrophysicists have looser standards for acceptance of a theory, since they have so much less to work with, but in my mind, those types of theories are very subject to change as we learn more and more.

I don't think my argument relies on the universe being zero-sum anyway, my point was, things can be created, without anything basic being created. I can create a pencil from wood and graphite, and a pencil was "created", even though there is no net gain or loss of mass or energy or anything basic.

If life can be viewed as an assembly of matter, which I think it can, then really the ultimate creation of the universe is irrelevant to the creation of anything of a higher order, like life, or pencils, or cakes.

Re:all i can say is...

[GigsVT]

In the thrift store, I found a book, it's about a 6th grade level science book. It's called science for christians, it's from the 70s or so I think.

I think it may be worth something some day, most of the arguments it gives have already been invalidated by modern science.

Of course, it's all relative, the legitimate science text books printed today contain tons of inaccuracies and gross misstatements. I should have never tried to learn science as a kid from those books, I've had to throw away most of the knowledge after I learned the way things REALLY are.

Re:This is still under press embargo!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It was released on the 33rd of February (RELEASE: 02-33)

Re:We Need To Talk, Everybody

[Anonymous Coward]

Dudley Moore was perhaps the least funny comedian of our time.

For more information about how this opinion was formed, please watch Arthur, Moore's career apogee.

Re:NASA these days

[Anonymous Coward]

That last sentence should be: We will NEVER see anything interesting out of NASA again.

right.....

[bleckywelcky]

So we create a certain environment that allows for certain amino acids to be detected, nevermind that you fail to mention WHICH amino acids. They reported that they were only able to detect glycine, alanine, and serine. Wow! Shebang! Huzzah! We have these three amino acids, this MUST mean that humans have evolved from some frozen water containing some basic molecules that was hit with some radiation into the extremely advanced and complex organisms that we are today; and that someway, somehow this little bit of water, radiation, and other basic molecules have given us emotions, cognitive proactive and reactive thoughts and actions, and intelligent analysis and thinking processes. The answer is most definitely here! Let us all succumb to these amazing amino acids and praise them for our existance (not to mention the at least 17 other amino acids that are critical for human existance).

Re:right.....

[ptet]

Even better!

Just because we don't fully understand the mechanism for the creation of life, let's assume it must've been down to an all powerful creator...

No wait! Let's assume it's down to *our* set of creation myths, rather than anyone elses...

That means we are right and everyone else is wrong. From that we can justify free access to guns, bombing abortion clinics, and hating fags!

It makes perfect sense! Our God is a God of infinite love. That's why he cursed all of mankind - created in his image - for its first mistake in the garden of eden. That's why all the evidence he left in the universe contradicts the literal word of the Bible.

Praise the Lord! (As long as it's OUR Lord, and nobody elses...)

Re:right.....

[bleckywelcky]

You have so many things wrong, I'm not even gonna try to point them all out. One thing that requires a response though is:

That means we are right and everyone else is wrong. From that we can justify free access to guns, bombing abortion clinics, and hating fags!

I'd swear this sounded like some little kid's rant if it weren't for the tone of the rest of the reply. Let us get one thing straight here, most any (and I would think all) forms of creationism (and most definitely Christianity) would not condone the actions of anyone who bombs an abortion clinic or takes some sort of hate crime action towards anyone for any reason. The people who do these things are mentally ill if they try to justify their actions through their beliefs. And people who do these things are most likely radicals not even involved directly with any set of creation ideas. Your conclusions from whatever it may be, news/etc, are skewed so far off from reality. These claims would be similar to concluding that we should shoot any and all people who follow Islam because a couple Islamic fundamentalist wackos flew a couple planes into some major buildings in NYC.

Please put your FUD somewhere else.

meet up in the middle?

[zer0*ryok0]

i always figured someone should come along and sayy.. "we were created, and we(are) evolved(ing)"

that way everyone is happy ;P

Re:meet up in the middle?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that we weren't created and we aren't evolving.

Re:meet up in the middle?

[alargeduck]

not only does that theory please everyone, but taking into account all the evidence, it seems like a very sensible theory indeed.

Perhaps indeed god created life, and then allowed it to evolve, perhaps with a gentle nudge to guide the evolving life in the right direction. Religious zealots are going to come up and say that the universe was created 4000 years ago in 6 days, so there hasnt been enough time for evolution to take place. According to 2 Peter 3:8: "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So the seven days genesis talks about arent seven days of 24 hours each, rather they could be any period time, 7000 years, or 16 million or however old the universe is believed to be.

Anyways, this rant is way off topic, better end it now...

Re:meet up in the middle?

[dadragon]

Perhaps indeed god created life, and then allowed it to evolve, perhaps with a gentle nudge to guide the evolving life in the right direction. Religious zealots are going to come up and say that the universe was created 4000 years ago in 6 days, so there hasnt been enough time for evolution to take place. According to 2 Peter 3:8: "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So the seven days genesis talks about arent seven days of 24 hours each, rather they could be any period time, 7000 years, or 16 million or however old the universe is believed to be.

That's what Genesis seems to imply. "In the beginning God created heaven and the earth. Now the Earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over waters" Genesis 1-2(NIV)

Then the rest of the creation process happens. It doesn't say how long the earth had been in existence, just that it was there before the six days, prehaps from a previous creation attempt?

Re:We Need To Talk, Everybody

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not glad when anyone dies, but I'm glad that Dudley won't be making any more movies. I've always hated his work.

The death of Uncle Miltie on the other hand makes me sad.

right... (again)

[bleckywelcky]

I already replied to one of these 'out of the blue' jabs, but it was lost - so here it is again for this other jab.

So we create a certain environment that allows for certain amino acids to be detected, nevermind that you fail to mention WHICH amino acids. They reported that they were only able to detect glycine, alanine, and serine. Wow! Shebang! Huzzah! We have these three amino acids, this MUST mean that humans have evolved from some frozen water containing some basic molecules that was hit with some radiation into the extremely advanced and complex organisms that we are today; and that someway, somehow this little bit of water, radiation, and other basic molecules have given us emotions, cognitive proactive and reactive thoughts and actions, and intelligent analysis and thinking processes. The answer is most definitely here! Let us all succumb to these amazing amino acids and praise them for our existance (not to mention the at least 17 other amino acids that are critical for human existance).

Re:right... (again)

[Anonymous Coward]

lame ass trolls.

Re:right... (again)

[bleckywelcky]

lame ass ACs.

Sorry kiddo, but this isn't trolling when people try to say "Hah, take that creationism!" So many people are gonna see that comment without even reading the article and are going to write it off as "Hey, looks these amino acidy thingies they made prove that creationism is false." The original poster had absolutely no clue what he was talking about, it appears as though YOU(?) have absolutely no clue about what you even think you are talking about... I am trying to bring some mild clues in. Take your trolling elsewhere and log in buddy.

Re:right... (again)

[Avatar1000]

Ok - so the AC didn't contribute anything except flamebait; but your post (that the AC was responding to) could easily be taken to be trolling. You seem to not understand the science involved, or - worse - to deliberately distort it. Neither evolution nor this experiment demands that humans spring, perfectly-formed, from a few amino acids and a bit of ice in interstellar space, which is what you seem to posit.
I honestly don't know why I bother with the science lessons, but here goes - evolution only states that very simple, primitive, only marginally efficient organisms can improve over generations; and that even small increments of improvement are strongly favored, and can add up to very large improvements. For that matter, evolution doesn't require cells, organelles, DNA, or any other bit of molecular biology that you care to point to - all it requires is something replicating (however poorly) and competing for resources to carry on that replication; it does nothing to explain the origins of life itself - that is the domain of the closely related feild of Abiogenesis. The favored model (currently, and to my knowledge only) there doesn't even bring DNA or proteins into the picture until fairly late - this is called the RNA World hypothesis and it really does seem to be pretty good.
As to creationism - please don't try to advocate it; for the Fundamentalist Christian Young Earth Creationism to work, ALL of science has to be mangled into utter unintelligibility. Cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, paleontology, archeology, meteorology, and all their (very useful) subfields - must be dismissed as garbage in order to force the world-veiw that YE Creationism demands. It is simply too much to swallow.
A pretty good place to start looking for information on this is the talk-origins FAQ at: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

Hope this helps.

Re:right... (again)

[bleckywelcky]

As to creationism - please don't try to advocate it; for the Fundamentalist Christian Young Earth Creationism to work, ALL of science has to be mangled into utter unintelligibility.

I'm not sure where you are going with this... trying to somehow claim that a YE theory is absolutely wrong because of any of numerous scientific findings that have been made, by us humans. That this somehow invalidates any and all opposing thoughts. This is a rather ridiculous statement - along the lines of standing under an orange tree in the middle of an apple orchard and claiming that there are only oranges throughout the orchard - completely inane and without any sustainable arguments. Scientific theories have been proven wrong over and over again in the past. People have died believing that certain theories were workable. Please don't try and use this ridiculous FUD in origin discussions. Mind you that I know of and understand many scientific theories that can be used to manipulate our environments, but just because some do work does not mean that they are all right. And your statement:

Cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, paleontology, archeology, meteorology, and all their (very useful) subfields - must be dismissed as garbage in order to force the world-veiw that YE Creationism demands.

is completely incorrect, and quite ignorant of the subject you claim so much knowledge of, might I add. For example, a YE theory does not claim that Newton's laws of motion are incorrect. A YE theory does not claim that red shifts are false. A YE theory does not state that sediment flow does not happen. A YE theory does not imply any of what you just said. You can take your foot out of your mouth now, and stop talking through... well whatever else you are using, because your foot is in your mouth.

And asking someone not to advocate their thougts and ideas to others because they conflict with what you believe in? What the fudge is this? Censorship from a /. patron? I believe you are off your rocker, sir/ma'am. Why should someone succumb to oppositional ideas? Because you have scientific theories that back up your ideas? Who cares? Creationism has theories and proof to back up its ideas, so why not this... "As to evolution - please don't try to advocate it; for the Theory of Evolution to work, ALL of religion has to be mangled into utter unintelligibility." ? Pointless eh? Because you don't care what creationism provides for, even if it is true. Well, many people don't care about various scientific ideas either. Science is not an 'exact science' to be used as a universal explanation. Our world needs to operate in some fashion, so rules can be applied to govern its operation, but where did these rules come from? Many creationists can believe in scientific ideas to govern the world, but that their origins are in an original creation. So, a young earth theory does not even mangle existing scientifc ideas into oblivion.

As for the science lessons, I have attended far more complex lectures and discussions on the topic than the paltry attempt at an explanation you have provided. Mind you that I don't remember some of the specifics of such events entirely, but the conclusions have survived.

As for the FAQ you have provided, it seems to state a neutral ground, but reading through the various questions and documents shows a definite bias towards an anti-creation evolution - about as useful as any other scientific journal, perhaps just more open to opposition.

My main post was not trolling, nor an explanation of the science as you have claimed to interpret it as, and was not necessarily meant to be taken completely serious. It was a minor rant at/laugh at/miniscule explanation of the ignorance of so many people who are uneducated on the subject of evolution/creationism, but biased towards evolution, who cry out "the answer has been shown" because a few amino acids were detected in a hostile environment.

It's kinda neat how so many people who believe in creationism can still embrace ideas of science, yet so many people who live their lives in science feel the need to reject creationism. You shouldn't feel the need to fight opposing ideas so violently when the ideas of the other side aren't threatening in the least bit. I for one don't emerge out of the blue trying to fight science. I may however try to promote my ideas, and respond when certain attacks have been made.

Hope this clears things up for you.

Re:right... (again)

[Avatar1000]

This might take a while, please bear with me:

As to creationism - please don't try to advocate it; for the Fundamentalist Christian Young Earth Creationism to work, ALL of science has to be mangled into utter unintelligibility.

I'm not sure where you are going with this... trying to somehow claim that a YE theory is absolutely wrong because of any of numerous scientific findings that have been made, by us humans. That this somehow invalidates any and all opposing thoughts. This is a rather ridiculous statement - along the lines of standing under an orange tree in the middle of an apple orchard and claiming that there are only oranges throughout the orchard - completely inane and without any sustainable arguments. Scientific theories have been proven wrong over and over again in the past.

Yes, they have - but remember, our current theories did not spring fully-formed into being in a single instant; they have incrementally improved (over centuries of careful observation) by replacing older theories that worked less-well. The great-grand-daddy of almost all scientific theories today is Creationism - which sorta leads to the conclusion that discarding any science in favor of Creationism is unwise.

People have died believing that certain theories were workable.

Yup - some of them went to the firey stake certain that the Earth was not the center of the Universe; perhaps religious advocates should be careful of the stones they toss here....

Please don't try and use this ridiculous FUD in origin discussions.

I provided a link, which links to many resources backing my claim that 'Creation Science' isn't a science at all, and is completely untenable as an explanation for the natural origin of life on Earth.

Mind you that I know of and understand many scientific theories that can be used to manipulate our environments, but just because some do work does not mean that they are all right.

No, it just means that they are righter than competing explanations; they will certainly be discarded or modified when better theories come along. "Creation Science" and Creationism in general is NOT one of these.

And your statement:

Cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, paleontology, archeology, meteorology, and all their (very useful) subfields - must be dismissed as garbage in order to force the world-veiw that YE Creationism demands.

is completely incorrect, and quite ignorant of the subject you claim so much knowledge of, might I add. For example, a YE theory does not claim that Newton's laws of motion are incorrect.

Nope - not explicitly; even the most fanatic must realize that a full blown attack on Newton's mechanics is even more laughable (if that is possible) than their attack on Evolution. Nevertheless, Newton's Mechanics are built upon earlier (very sound, within it's well recognized limits) science; and is used in turn as foundations for other sciences - for instance Hubbles 'Expanding Universe" theory http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q544.html
htt p://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q401.html
http:/ /itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q55.html
This is NOT hand waving.

A YE theory does not claim that red shifts are false.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/nri.html
Umm.. except that the Earth was created BEFORE all the 'Heavenly Lights', and so YE Creationism would claim a universe younger than million years - actually, I think the YE Creationists predict that the 'Creation' happened less than about 10000 years ago. Since red shifts support a universe ~15 billion years old, YE Creationists must refute them.
http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q681.ht ml

A YE theory does not state that sediment flow does not happen.

No, it just insists that much of todays geology be created in a world wide flood, something that was recognized as a severe problem for Creationism in the 1840's and earlier. Needless to say, for the stratigraphic column to have formed the way YE Creation insists it must have, geology has to be mangled.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noah s-ark.html

A YE theory does not imply any of what you just said. You can take your foot out of your mouth now, and stop talking through... well whatever else you are using, because your foot is in your mouth.

What didn't we cover? Cosmology? the Big bang?.. no first set of links should cover that....
Astronomy? Well, aside from the age of the universe, and the fact that none of the 'Heavenly Lights' actually seem to be attached to any sort of 'Firmamnent', and probably all of the Spectroscopy techniques which yeild red shift data, chemical composition data, etc (you WERE disputing red shifts showing an old universe, weren't you? Or did you abandon YE Creationism there?) have yet to be refuted... aside from all that, I guess "Creation Sciance" and Astronomy are bestest buddies.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/nri.html
Physic s - this includes more than just Newton, you know. And while you may later want to fight with Newton for his role in inspiring Hubble's 'Expanding Universe', other Young Earthers have already started in in physics from the nuclear theory side (radiometric dating),
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.h tml
as well as the constancy of the speed of light itself...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html
Go od luck to you if Creationism wins, you WILL have to chuck much of physics as heresy.
Geology?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs /faq-age-of-earth.h tml
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.htm l
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-age-of-e art h.html
paleontology? Here we get back to saltation and the creation of many strata...
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs -flood.html
archeology? Well, obviously - any civilization 'older' than the Earth, or any evidence against the whole 'Adam and Eve only' picture of human origins will be a problem. Not to mention geolingustics and Babel...
meteorology? Ok, so maybe I went out on a limb here. Sorry. But... any YE Creation theory which succeeds in 'debunking' physics, chemistry, etc., will have gone a long way to discarding meteorology too. Maybe it really wasn't such a stretch.

And asking someone not to advocate their thougts and ideas to others because they conflict with what you believe in? What the fudge is this? Censorship from a /. patron? I believe you are off your rocker, sir/ma'am.

I am not asking you to discard your religion; just stop trying to pretend it's a science of some sort. Also, as part of that, don't try to inflict your religious veiws on every schoolchild in the US by gussying up the book of Genesis in the emporers new pseudo-scientific clothes.

Why should someone succumb to oppositional ideas? Because you have scientific theories that back up your ideas? Who cares? Creationism has theories and proof to back up its ideas, so why not this... "As to evolution - please don't try to advocate it; for the Theory of Evolution to work, ALL of religion has to be mangled into utter unintelligibility." ? Pointless eh?

Um... Yes?! I am not asking you to 'succumb' to, or be convinced by, the end result of centuries of hard work and careful observation, which has eventually led to todays useful and productive scientific theories. I am just asking you to stop promoting the purely political agenda which is Young Earth Creationism, and to stop pretending that it has explanatory power or intellectual legitimacy as an explanation of the NATURAL world.

Because you don't care what creationism provides for, even if it is true. Well, many people don't care about various scientific ideas either.

Fine by me.. science isn't about opinions - it is about what can be verified, and what works. Who believes it, or doesn't, is fairly unimportant - especially gulliable laymen.

Science is not an 'exact science' to be used as a universal explanation.

Obviously this is a strange new usage of the word 'Science', of which I was previously unaware. Science does try to be exact - and generally does a pretty good job, within its recognized limits. Also, science does seek universal principle of the natural world - anything which only applies to only one particular instant or tiny location is virtually useless to science.

Our world needs to operate in some fashion, so rules can be applied to govern its operation, but where did these rules come from? Many creationists can believe in scientific ideas to govern the world, but that their origins are in an original creation. So, a young earth theory does not even mangle existing scientifc ideas into oblivion.

This is a bit muddled, I think - scientific laws aren't 'enforced', and don't 'Govern' in that sense at all; rather, science seeks to understand the principles already in operation.... And your point about many Creationists believing in scientific thought is well made; but Young Earth Creationists (at least the members of the Cration Research Society) are forbidden from this by the statement of belief they are required to sign. But more to the point: Yes Virginia, Young Earth Creationism (certainly not the only flavor of Creationism) does demand the mangling of all science, as I think the links above should have already illustrated. If you hold the Bible to be non-literal, and to be a source of comfort, guidance, and inspiration, and the Genesis story to be yet another non-literal parable from which valuable teachings can be drawn, then more power to you. I certainly have little to no quarrel with any such belief. But insist that it the ONLY "TRUE" history of the origins of life, the universe, and everthing - and you've gotten up my nose. This is what I was trying to express when I asked you not to advocate it; believe what you will, but please leave evangelism at home.

As for the science lessons, I have attended far more complex lectures and discussions on the topic than the paltry attempt at an explanation you have provided. Mind you that I don't remember some of the specifics of such events entirely, but the conclusions have survived.

Thank you - the 'Paltry' explanation was meant to be simple, and present only a few essential features; glad to see it succeeded. If much of it eludes your memory later, it will not be because I tried to be too obscure or complex.

As for the FAQ you have provided, it seems to state a neutral ground, but reading through the various questions and documents shows a definite bias towards an anti-creation evolution - about as useful as any other scientific journal, perhaps just more open to opposition.

My aplogies, the linked FAQ is only as useful (perhaps less, though it has a wider scope) as a scientific journal. I fail to see this as a fault - the truth does seem to be that the evidence in nature is strongly against Young Earth Creationism; any neutral, rational being faced with such evidence will inevitably take the non-YEC view.

My main post was not trolling, nor an explanation of the science as you have claimed to interpret it as, and was not necessarily meant to be taken completely serious. It was a minor rant at/laugh at/miniscule explanation of the ignorance of so many people who are uneducated on the subject of evolution/creationism, but biased towards evolution, who cry out "the answer has been shown" because a few amino acids were detected in a hostile environment.

My apologies for missing the wit/sarcasm. It seemed as though you were constructing a straw-man, or had missed the point - science, being incremental, often works by taking small steps, this was such a small step. Not only that, but it was a test of the extra-terrestial nutrients side of abiogenesis - and had Amino-Acids failed to form, I cynically believe that it would be YECs crowing about their 'Victory in the Lab'.

It's kinda neat how so many people who believe in creationism can still embrace ideas of science, yet so many people who live their lives in science feel the need to reject creationism. You shouldn't feel the need to fight opposing ideas so violently when the ideas of the other side aren't threatening in the least bit. I for one don't emerge out of the blue trying to fight science. I may however try to promote my ideas, and respond when certain attacks have been made.

I must admit to somewhat of a knee-jerk reation when it comes to YE Creationism; but I think that you are right that it is wonderful when people can find ways to embrace and combine reason with their own supernatural beliefs. That said, I know several molecular biologists who have very strong personal religious beliefs, and do not find them incompatible with the modern scientific veiw of the origins and developement of life here on Earth.

Hope this clears things up for you.

Somewhat; understand that my primary objection is not to your religion, but with a particular way of promoting a portion of it to the public. Wow.. this has taken a whole lot longer than I thought it would, sorry for the length. *Sigh - darn tired and going to bed*

Re:right... (again)

[bleckywelcky]

Ok, I guess I may be slightly skewed as far as what I consider YE versus what you consider YE to be. Mind you that I myself do not hold my beliefs to any certain YE theory, nor do I completely hold myself to a YE theory solely. I have interpreted a young earth as being young only in perspective, not in absolute. When I consider YE theory, it is not an explanation of the natural world around us, but rather an explanation for the natural world around us. It doesn't try to explain the workings of nature, only provides an explanation for their origin and existance. In fact, Christianity as a whole does not try to explain principles of nature at all - that is not of concern for its base ideas. And truthfully, scientific ideas have an impact on what exactly I interpret to be YE. When I do consider YE, it is that the world was created in a certain state with certain characteristics, and that these characteristics are not exactly indicative of the time of creation. They are merely protocol and status of the world upon creation. It would seem rather far-fetched to consider that the universe was created (in a purely scientific view) within the last 10000 years.

This CRS organization you spoke of seems rather radical, and if you are right about the logistics of their membership - that they refute many scientific principles - then their life in this world will be rather difficult in light of their ignorance. This does not mean that other Christian (I'm assuming their roots are base in Christianity) organizations would shun them for refuting common day principles, or call their unique principles ridiculous; as long as they adhere to the core Christian principles, then that is all that matters.

I guess the core notion that I have made, and try to get across to others, is that science is purely interpretational and nothing about science is exact. The basis of all science is observing, interpreting, and concluding - trying to fit a model or otherwise to naturally occuring phenomenon in order to describe and predict the phenomenon to better aid us in our lives. This process is inherently flawed and inherently not exact. There is nothing wrong with this, and I rather enjoy the interpretations of science and their advances that ease our lives. I in fact work in the area of physics, math, and chemistry where I deal with principles, theories, and laws of science all the time. It is just that through this, the scientific ideas can not be used as a substantial explanation for the origin of the world, and thereby the origin of the scientific ideas themselves... almost a circular logic - just in a twisted way.

As for the public education part of this comment:

I am not asking you to discard your religion; just stop trying to pretend it's a science of some sort. Also, as part of that, don't try to inflict your religious veiws on every schoolchild in the US by gussying up the book of Genesis in the emporers new pseudo-scientific clothes.

Why should religious people then be forced to hear about the scientific explanation for our origin? This is rather hipocritical, totalitarian, fascist, whatever... "You have to learn about our ideas, study them, and understand them, nevermind that they are ever changing theories and the majority of the world believes otherwise and that we won't allow opposing ideas to be taught." This is ridiculous. Now, by majority I am not trying to indicate that Christianity covers the globe like nothing else, I am merely saying that the number of religious people in the world far excedes the number of purely scientific people. But requiring one train of thought to be learned while equally substantial trains of thought are banned from existance within the same environments is insane. People always complain that when their kids go to school they don't want them to be brainwashed with religious nonsense... well I don't want my kids to be brainwashed with scientific nonsense. They can learn about the scientific ideas in due course, but not during young fragile growth periods.

Courses in practical physics, chemistry, biology... sciences should be taught in school because they contain practical ideas to be used in life and a background for how our environment works; but origin sciences should either be 1) completely left out of the scene or 2) optional, but only if opposing ideas are also allowed.

My apologies for missing the wit/sarcasm. It seemed as though you were constructing a straw-man, or had missed the point - science, being incremental, often works by taking small steps, this was such a small step. Not only that, but it was a test of the extra-terrestial nutrients side of abiogenesis - and had Amino-Acids failed to form, I cynically believe that it would be YECs crowing about their 'Victory in the Lab'.

As you tried to point out elsewhere, the notions presented are based on being able to observe small, incremental changes, and that these changes aren't necessarily a path to human existance, but rather evidence that change can occur (or at least that was my interpretation of what you have tried to explain). Without going into detail, I agree with these ideas. I agree that microevolution does occur, and that changes and adaptions occur over periods of time due to environmental influences. But this is a far cry from the claims of macroevolution. Claiming that we were able to evolve from the formations of these amino acids. That is the part that I have problems with. That from nothing after the big bang, there has evolved something - us humans. The microevolution of animals forming calloused apendages as a result of wear and tear due their environments is understandable. The macroevolution of humans from heat and hydrogen is ridiculous.

There might be an outrageous few who would "crow ... about their 'Victory in the Lab'" but they would be few and far between. Those scientific ideas attempting to be proven are already based on extreme odds - the situation in which amino acids would have not been detected could have just been one of the million of other situations in which the amino acids could not have formed. I know I wouldn't pay any particular attention to the failed experiment - because it was just that, an experiment.

Re:This is still under press embargo!!

[Anonymous Coward]

11:00 is also just before noon. This story is nearly 10 hours old.

Similar, more important

[Llywelyn]

There is a great deal of doubt whether the mixture of gases used in this experiment actually existed on earth: it assumes a reducing atmosphere, among other things that geology does not tell us.

More than one geologist, in fact, has noted that the only reason that they believe that there ever was a reducing atmosphere on Earth is because life is obviously here and the basic building blocks couldn't form in the presence of Oxygen.

At the same time, however, those amino acids couldn't form without the presence of an ozone layer--which requires free oxygen.

This is interesting and intriguing because it shows how these blocks could form in deep space and then arrive on Earth--since we already know that they can remain intact in their descent through the atmosphere.

It still doesn't even come *close* to answer the criticisms levied against abiogenesis (the formation of proteins, functional alleles, &c), but it is interesting and extremely significant over the Urey-Miller experiment.

Re:Similar, more important

[BlackGriffen]

If you had amino acids forming in deep ocean, then the lack of ozone layer wouldn't be a problem, would it? (honest question, sorry it can be read as rhetorical) As for the high oxygen levels in our atmosphere, is it possible that life is necessary to do that? I'm no chemist, but it's my understanding that oxygen is highly reactive, and thus incredibly good at 'oxidizing' (pun intended) things. It strikes me as odd that any planet would have a significant amount of O2 without some process putting it there (just like Cl2 isn't abundant). Thus it would stand to reason that on possible reason life spent so long in the oceans was because that the life in the ocean had to liberate enough O2 to get an ozone layer set up. It's my understanding, also, that the organism's work would simply be undone as the chemicals were released when it died. Thus, the formation of large carbon deposits (read: coal, oil, natural gas, and that methane impregnated ice) may have played a critical role in cooling the planet down; that is, assuming that the sun's temperature hasn't varied a whole lot over the past billion years or so (unlikely).

Just the musings of a college student who really should be sleeping.

BlackGriffen

Re:NASA these days

[Skeld]

What do you expect NASA to do? The only people who aren't pissed at them for wasting tons of money are the people pissed at them for not doing anything they're interested in.

It's like this: You give them 40 billion, and we'll go to Mars.

A bit of relevance... This does not disprove God. Christianity is based on faith. The whole system is based on faith. Were we to have ANY proof that God exists, we no longer need faith, and so the system would fail. Therefore, if God exists and He is all powerful, He would have hidden all traces of his existence and acts in order to preserve the need for faith. So there will always be a rational explanation. Case in point: amino acids formed.

By the way, I'm an agnostic communist with Zen and Tibetan Buddhist sympathies. Thought that might be interesting.

-Skeld

Re:/ borke eh

[Anonymous Coward]

Cause we don't want any terrorist goatfuckers here. If you can't make your name pronounceable in english phonics, then get the fuck off of slashdot.

Re:NASA these days

[RoguePsion]

Damn right man. It was bad enough in the late 90's when we just had money to blow and we still weren't exploring space. Now with huge portions of the budget going to fight terrorism, we are unlikely to see anything new and exciting in space for quite some time. I mean, come on, do we really need to put that much money into national defense when the threat is a few thousand ill equipped, untrained wackos on the other side of the world? Not that it would matter, space seems to be lower on the government payroll than subsidizing new Pauly Shore movies.

Re:NASA these days

[Pussy Is Money]

In other words, you are an authoritarian theocrat.

Re:NASA these days

[Anonymous Coward]

if God exists and He is all powerful, He would have hidden all traces of his existence

The bible is the word of god. Therefore god hasn't hidden all traces of itself. therefore god doesn't exist.

qed

I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

..and I've been saying it here and elsewhere for some time. Sooner or later, it will sink in.

Intelligent Design & The Odds Of Life

[ptet]

I am not a creationist.

Several posters have said this.

I'll be charitable and guess that they are "Intelligent Design" advocates.

How can we know that the odds against life occurring "are too great"? We are talking about a process we don't understand. Any guess regarding odds can only be a guess. And the fact of the matter is that we are all here... Ergo, life was created somehow or other. See TalkOrigins for more on the odds of life et al).

Conclusion 1: All the evidence is that life was created by natural processes. We don't know exactly how.

Nothing in that precludes the existence of "god". If a natural process created life, then surely it would be "his" natural process...

What IDer's attempt to argue is that the creation of life "requires" or "proves" not only (a) that god exists; but also (b) that he is a "conservative" christian god. It does nothing of the sort.

If there was any scientific evidence whatsoever of "design" in the building blocks of life - as the IDer's favorite Michael Behe suggests - it would be like finding a black monolith on the moon (as in "2001"). Behe has found nothing of the sort.

Conclusion 2: "Intelligent Design" theory goes nowhere (a) to proving the existence of god(s); or (b) to proving anything about his/her/its/their nature.

PTET

Re:Intelligent Design & The Odds Of Life

[Llywelyn]

0) I am not a Creationist, nor am I a member of an Abrahamic religion. Nor am I a fundamentalist of any sort.

1) Read the works of Robert Shapiro, along with the citations on the talk origins site I know you are referencing (there are two, incidentally, one of which is uncertain the other of which is positive in its conclusions).

2) As the above work will show, it isn't completely a guess as we actually know quite a bit about the processes involved.

3) If we can demonstrate a "proof by mathematical impossibility" and then further demonstrate that with a a chosen starting set it becomes possible but uncertain then we have evidence of Intelligent Design.

4) I am a proponent of Intelligent Design, but what I propose has nothing even remotely to do with Christianity--or any religion's interpretation on Creation.

Re:Intelligent Design & The Odds Of Life

[ptet]

An interesting post...

But the vast majority of life scientists - of every and no religion - do *not* think that that there is a "proof by mathematical impossibility" of Intelligent Design...

Implying the existence of a god or gods from an unknown process is as much use as drawing "there be dragons" on the edge of a map...

My main beef, as I'm sure you noted, is the imposition of a given religious dogma from the "Intelligent Design" argument - usally "conservative Christianity"...

Peace and all ;>

Re:Intelligent Design & The Odds Of Life

[BurntHombre]

What IDer's attempt to argue is that the creation of life "requires" or "proves" not only (a) that god exists; but also (b) that he is a "conservative" christian god. It does nothing of the sort.

Wrong. Intelligent Design theory says nothing and attempts to say nothing about the characteristics of the designer. You're projecting here.

"Intelligent Design" theory goes nowhere (a) to proving the existence of god(s); or (b) to proving anything about his/her/its/their nature.

See above. The whole point of ID theory is that it only posits the existence of a designer, and nothing about the designer's characteristics.

Re:Intelligent Design & The Odds Of Life

[Paradise Pete]

I am not a Creationist, nor am I a member of an Abrahamic religion.

Yeah right. You can't fool us, you Lincoln-ite.

Re:Intelligent Design & The Odds Of Life

[ptet]

Wrong. Intelligent Design theory says nothing and attempts to say nothing about the characteristics of the designer. You're projecting here.

Oh really? Well, that's the ID drill (ARN ID FAQ) - but only because teaching the inference of "A Religion" from ID in public schools would be unconstitutional in the USA...

The whole point of ID theory is that it only posits the existence of a designer, and nothing about the designer's characteristics.

Hmmm... The whole point of ID seems to be to overlay religious agendas onto the framework of science, to combat "godless humanism" ;>

As I said, if there was any real evidence of ID, it would be like finding the black monolith in the film 2001... It would be the biggest discovery in the history of humanity...

The trouble is, the vast majority of life scientists - the experts in the field - think Behe and his fellow IDer's are simply seeing what they want to see - the fingerprints of god in natural processes.

Most Christians Scientists world-wide are happy to accept everything science teaches as "the work of God". That isn't enough for IDers.

Although it pretends otherwise, ID is a political movement motivated by a desire to support religious agendas.

PTET

Re:Intelligent Design & The Odds Of Life

[BurntHombre]

You still haven't addressed my response. You're trying to suggest that, because some Christians herald ID theory, ID theory is therefore a Christian movement. Wrong.

Re:Intelligent Design & The Odds Of Life

[ptet]

You still haven't addressed my response. You're trying to suggest that, because some Christians herald ID theory, ID theory is therefore a Christian movement. Wrong.

(1) You are correct is stating that ID theory by itself "says nothing and attempts to say nothing about the characteristics of the designer" - and is therefore not "a Christian Movement". It seeks to appeal to people of all and no denominations.

(2) However, ID theory was initially proposed by Christian scientists (who, incidentally, soundly reject the "Young Earth" hypothesis and largely accept that evolution happens in neo-Darwinian terms).

(3) ID theory has gained momentum in America because "Young Earth Christianity" has been so thoroughly discredited.

(4) My "problem" is that ID theory is used almost exclusively by Christian groups (ARN, IDEA, "Reasons") pushing a largely right-wing US "conservative" agenda. Now, they can do that politically all they want - but it is bizarre and wrong to claim that they have a "scientific" base to their beliefs. (That's what the communists and nazis claimed too - if I may invoke Godwin;> - and look how much damage they did).

(5) Scientific advances - like the one cited in the original article - show how risible ID theory is. Our understanding grows constantly... It is ludicrous to announce "we've gone as far as we can go" in understanding any supposed "irreducible complexity".

(6) None of that says "there is no God". And who knows, maybe Science will eventually uncover some deep mysterious force behind creation - but it is just plain wrong to suggest that we've found any evidence whatsoever that one "must" scientifically exist.

(7) ID theory may not be an overtly "Christian movement": but it is not a "Scientific movement" either.

PTET

Wow! Intelligent Life creates life building blocks

[Anonymous Coward]

Isnt it great when scientist prove once again that they can use thier Inteligence to create life!

Would it be coincidence..

[skilef]

..that glycine, alanine and serine, the amino acids formed, are three of the smallest and structurally less energy-consuming amino acids?

Re:NASA these days

[Skeld]

The bible is the word of god. Therefore god hasn't hidden all traces of itself. therefore god doesn't exist.

Ah, but the bible could be the work of a raving madman (or a raving science-fiction author) in which case faith is still required. As long as there is a possible reasonable explanation other than God existing, the system can still sort of work. Which happens to make it pretty much impossible to prove it one way or the other.

In other words, you are an authoritarian theocrat.

Well... it's more like "free stuff for everyone without hurting anyone and just confuse the hell out of anyone who gets in your way." Zen's fun stuff, btw. An assault on logic.
-Skeld

Grateful!

[bughunter]

Comments like this (and its replies) are why I continue to read Slashdot despite all its warts. I can count on at least one insightful, indepth, cogent question, commentary, or correction on significant science or technology stories.

Mark me offtopic, thanks. I need a reason to earn more karma since I'm stuck at 50.But I just have to express my gratitude to ontopic posters on every story that add more depth and intelligent commentary than I could get from any other media source. It's worth putting up with the trolls and whiners just to read intelligent, cogent discourse about sci/tech news stories. And invariably there'll be a story where I can offer the same, based on my own areas of expertise.

And finally, to stay on topic, how do these results bear on the theories that DNA first evolved as a result of clay formations that allowed chain-like molecules to aggregate due to the clays' microscopic self-organisation of surface structures? It seemed to me that this was the catalyst for the formation of amino acids and DNA/RNA. Now that's all called into question.

Great story, great comments. All around thought provoking.

Also, [how or] can we do spectroscopic analyses to find amino acids in the matter surrounding other star systems? That would be a fascinating next line of inquiry.

And finally, if I weren't reading /. drunk, I might phrase my questions better... OK, for that reason alone I'm checking off the "No score +1 bonus" here.

Re:all i can say is...

[(outer-limits)]

I would like to share with you today, an article I read in the Australian Financial Review, but I can't because they insist on charging for access.

However, they did have a very interesting article from taken from Harpers Magazine, about how the Old Testament is exactly what many people have suspected, a typical myth in the tradition of Greek and Roman and Norse myths. There is no evidence supporting much of the Bible, but plenty of evidence to support the Old Testament being cobbled together at a certain point of time after the supposed incidents it mentions. In fact, there is a passage in the Old Testament that mentions old texts being found in a temple that were thought to have been long lost. Long lost, or just written?

Re:NASA these days

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the point in attacking 'logic'???
Isn't that all we got?
Well, to my conclusion I would stop my conclusion at the dot.

Just one question

[Llywelyn]

Another poster has done a fabulous job of critiquing your post, so I'll leave the vast majority of it alone--partly because it is too much of a pain to break down without carriage returns.

Anyways, just one question for you.

Where in this universe did you get the idea that I was critiquing micro or macro evolution?

I was discussing abiogenesis, also known as Chemical Evolution.

The proper order is read /then/ write.

sooo...

[mbennis]

If you think you are strong, why aren't you able to create a living fly, a weak and insignifiant living organism.. Then you will be a CREATOR..

The problem I have with this...

[uberdave]

Put lots of energy in to break everything apart and hope the bits come together in the right way with a means to carry off the excess energy (so the acids stay together)

And if they don't come all the way apart, how do you know?

Every square centimeter of every piece of lab equipment everywhere on the planet is covered in bacteria and virii. Merely killing the little critters is not enough for this type of experiment to be valid. Their bodies must be done away with. All amino acid and amino acid fragments must be removed. Not 99% removed. Not 99.9999% removed. Everything must be gone. Otherwise, all you're showing is that:

Raw material + energy + amino acids -> amino acids

instead of

Raw material + energy -> amino acids

Until all organic compounds are removed from the system (which we can't do), claims of creating spontaneous amino acids are invalid. In fact, the only thing that these experiments demonstrate is how difficult it is to wipe them out.

Re:The problem I have with this...

[Sir Tristam]

Every square centimeter of every piece of lab equipment everywhere on the planet is covered in bacteria and virii. Merely killing the little critters is not enough for this type of experiment to be valid. Their bodies must be done away with...Until all organic compounds are removed from the system (which we can't do), claims of creating spontaneous amino acids are invalid.

Valid results can still be achieved without pristine conditions. This is why running a "control" is essential in experimentation. Take 20 apparatus, and clean them of amino acids as best we can. Take 10, and test them for amino acid levels. This is our control, and establishes a baseline level for amino acids after our cleaning. Run the experiment in the other 10 apparatus, and then test them for amino acid levels. Do your statistical analysis, get your confidence levels, and you've got valid results.

Chris Beckenbach

That is a big "Depends" to you...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and not the diaper.

Some creationists try to debunk all scientific approaches to the universe and explaining it. Some (and maybe rightfully so) look beyond to the big bang (the first one if you believe in expansion/contraction as a cycle) and wonder where all that came from.

I don't believe it

[Anonymous Coward]

5679 Slashdot users, and nobody took the name "geek"?

Not exactly correct

[Anonymous Coward]

"More than one geologist, in fact, has noted that the only reason that they believe that there ever was a reducing atmosphere on Earth is because life is obviously here and the basic building blocks couldn't form in the presence of Oxygen."

The presence of large deposits of banded-iron formations indicate that reducing conditions probably did exist during some periods. These deposits suggest alternating periods of reducing (oxygen-free) and then oxidizing (oxygen present) atmospheres over time.

IIRC, some of the Hibbing range deposits are BIF's.

Re: "necessary for life"

[corey_lawson]

...should always be prefaced with "as we know it". No one would have predicted thermophilic bacteria dependent on hydrogen sulfide-based metabolism, bacteria that live off of oil and other toxic chemicals, etc., algae that live in icepacks We tend to think in too-narrow of terms. Granted, it is all we know, but it's just another form of "flat earth" thinking.

Can anyone answer this question?

[JJ]

Is the set of 17 amino acids in use on Earth-based life a privledged set? As in, are there any possible substitutes? Or could the set reasonably be expanded or contracted? I'm presuming size, composition, polarity and electronegativity are all limitations.

Re:Can anyone answer this question?

[belg4mit]

The essential amino acids are simply the most common. Some species (usualy bacteria) do not use one or two of the essential set, others may use additional amino acids. Without expanding into the infinte possible amino acids by extending the chains, you have the issue of chirality. Compare your left and right hands, are they the same? No they are mirror images. The chemical in turkey that makes you sleepy is an amino acid called L-tryptophan. But you can also have D-tryptophan. For some unknown reason most of the biologically active chemicals on earth are L not D. However it is usually not advantageous to go off willy-nilly using different amino acids than everything else, because

a) you have to make them yourself (can't ingest)
b) you cannot meaningfully swap DNA with other species

Deep theoretical implications

[Disco Chris]

What does it mean for the body building world ? The slashdot.org reader may not be so familier with this, but body builders suppliment their nutrition with fatty starch and Amino Acids.

Well, but the answer lies...withim ME

[TheGoatseMan]

I, Goatse, created all life. You silly mortals think you will best me, think again, haha!

Abiogenesis odds

[Avatar1000]

Phil Reeds short reply - attacking your gross misrepresentations about benificial mutations having never been observed - aside; your post - and the one you are defending - overlook gross mathematical innaccuracies in this attack on scientific abiogenesis. Ok, he has calculated that the odds for a fully functional cell forming is about 10^440 - that number only holds if you put a few chemicals in a box and shake, expecting a cell to miraculously just fall together. Abiogenesis makes no such claims; nor, in fact, does evolution. Rather, evolution only states that very simple, primitive, only marginally efficient organisms can improve over generations; and that even small increments of improvement are strongly favored, and can add up (over time) to very large improvements. What is more, you can build on the sucesses, and discard the failures - this shortens the required time amazingly.... Behold, the power of Natural Selection! For that matter, evolution doesn't require cells, organelles, DNA, or any other bit of molecular biology that you care to point to - all it requires is something replicating (however poorly) and competing for resources to carry on that replication; it does nothing to explain the origins of life itself - that is the domain of the closely related feild of Abiogenesis. The currently favored model (to my knowledge) there doesn't even bring DNA or proteins into the picture until fairly late - this is called the RNA World hypothesis and it really does seem to be pretty good. And keep in mind that Abiogenesis only has to have very few, very limited successes to get to all life as we know it; we don't have to put chemicals in a box and shake until a horse drops out, then a pig, then a fish, then a human.... Just one success can succeed for all of us.
As to creationism - please don't try to advocate it; for the Fundamentalist Christian Young Earth Creationism to work, ALL of science has to be mangled into utter unintelligibility. Cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, paleontology, archeology, meteorology, and all their (very useful) subfields - must be dismissed as garbage in order to force the world-veiw that YE Creationism demands. Not only that, but all the problems that you present for abiogenesis plague your "Creator" - did it simply arise by chance? What are the odds there? Ha - shake that box until a supreme being drops out, but you'll be here a long time - remember, the creator isn't allowed to have evolved by natural selection! Nope, Creationism is just too much to have to swallow.
I'm sure I should have been a little less inflamatory, sorry. I realize that probability is something that is very difficult for the human mind - intuition is NOT to be trusted here - and that there are a few Creationism advocates who are intellectually dishonest enough to have inflicted this faulty reasoning upon you under their guise of 'authority'. Not your fault at all. Incidently, this link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa. html
also leads (eventually) to several Creationist resources; good luck in your digging.

Re:Abiogenesis odds

[On Lawn]

Phil Reeds short reply - attacking your gross misrepresentations about benificial mutations having never been observed - aside;

Not so fast, Phil Reed has shown that he cannot find a scientific arguement with both hands and a flashlight. Just in case this is still in doubt lets look at how he defines evolution.

...evolution is strictly defined as changes in alleles (genes) in a population over time.

This is a strict definition? Lets compare it to the definition from the National Association of Biology Teachers.

evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments

Notice that in his religious zeal he completely bypasses the process criteria and effect, i.e. the "unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process", in order to conclude via non-sequiter that things change over time... ***whala*** evolution.

Now, beyond that I can only say that I won't be drug down into a creation vs evolution debate. I'll be quick to point out evolutionary zealots who do not understand the science they are advocating but there is no use in it for me to go further.

However, I'm afraid you suffer from the same, so I'll offer a few corrections...

Ok, he has calculated that the odds for a fully functional cell forming is about 10^440

That was an assertion that anonymous coward proposed, and not Llewelyn who wrote the post that Razorguy produced arguements that were a gross disservice to science. And I was exposing RazorGuy's disservice more than defending anyone.

Llewelyn was talking about the unlikelyhood of random production of the basic building blocks of life, that "first success", which would not have the benefit of the processes of mutation and evolution that are built into the genetic code. Although he did not produce a number, it does fit along the lines of abiogenisis and based on shear randomness would be astronomicaly improbable.

Your ignoring that basic fact of his arguement makes me suspicious that your looking for straw-men more than the truth. The next sentence provides more evidence.

As to creationism - please don't try to advocate it; for the Fundamentalist Christian Young Earth Creationism to work, ALL of science has to be mangled into utter unintelligibility. Cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, paleontology, archeology, meteorology, and all their (very useful) subfields - must be dismissed as garbage in order to force the world-veiw that YE Creationism demands.

You start out by advocating the dismissal outright of "creationism", but back it up with vague hand waving at a selective strawman representation in "Young Earth Creationism".

But wait there is more...

Not only that, but all the problems that you present for abiogenesis plague your "Creator" - did it simply arise by chance? What are the odds there?

Where did I reference "my creator" in the post you are refering to? Either you have your own divining power or you just conjered it up as part of a strawman. Lets say my creator is "Natural Selection" from the unlikely event of a decendent allel many millions of years ago. Whats the odds that you shake a box and "Natural Selection" comes out? There are many governing laws in this universe, how many times do you shake a box and come up with gravitation, "PV=NRT". Sure you could argue that for the box to exist you need those things already, and ... then you've answered your own question.

Abiogenesis math

[Avatar1000]

Cut and pasted from "Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution" from http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)

It's a great resource. Check it out.

Gods time isn't Literally our time

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay.. so now you are saying that a bit of the Genesis story IS NOT literal. Not a literal six days at all - so how about 'interpreting' the rest of it... like maybe it's just supposed to be a myth - Oops, sorry 'Parable' - to convey a set of moral lessons? Or maybe - God willed for the universe to be, and then let it run its course. Hmm... suddenly, I don't think you are Having Fun With Bible Literalism (tm) anymore, and this 'defense' of Creationism becomes unnecessary.

Don't trust the Creator

[Avatar1000]

try a little reading at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
G ood stuff.

The problem with literal Genesis creation (whether followed by a period of evolution or not) is that it requires the mangling of every science you care to name to make it work; further since what we know scientifically does work today, it requires the "Creator" to have gone to tremendous extra effort to decieve us. Why do we think the universe is about 16 billion years old? Astronomy and the speed of light, so god had to fake the old light... why do we think the Earth is about 4.5 Billion years old? Cosmology (the main sequence of stars, the Big Bang with inflation) and Geology (RadioIsotope dating, stratigraphy, plate tectonics, paleo magnetic traces...) and again, all this evidence had to be deliberatly falsified by the creator. These are more than just a few little fibs, they are grand LIES of universal scope.

I'd find the absence of such a Creator tremendously comforting.

Genesis problems

[Avatar1000]

Hey, if you are going to 'interpret' the time scale (ie, say that that tiny bit O' Genesis isn't literal) then don't stop there! Render the whole thing non-literal... After all, the sun isn't created until the fourth day (same time as the moon, and all the other 'lights of the sky' - planets, stars, etc) making it and everything else in the universe younger than the Earth. Not to mention that it (and all the 'lights') are firmly afixed to the 'Firmament'. Not to mention that all the birds and sea creatures were created on the fifth (several thousand or million year long - remember?) day; this includes owls right? Ok.. so their prey animals (mice) weren't created until the sixth day.... What did all those predatory birds EAT? Or how about plants (Third day) that require birds or even insects for seed spreading and pollination?
And then there's the whole Noachian flood fiasco. Trust me on this - don't try for literal Young Earth Creationism, it's just too much to swallow.
Look, I could go on, and probably get into some cheap shots at Creationism in truly poor taste - so I'll just stop now. But please check out this link: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
i t's a great place to start in the whole E/C debate, and yes - there are links to both sides of the issue there. Night Night

Big hairy deal

[dejesus]

This only replicates experiments done long ago. Amino acids are nothing. No one has made a protein in this manner yet.

End universe now? _Yes _No