Slashdot Mirror
Early Earth Atmosphere Favourable to Life
mathinator writes "A study by researchers at the University of Waterloo indicates that Earth in its infancy probably had substantial quantities of hydrogen in its atmosphere, a surprising finding that may alter the way many scientists think about how life began on the planet. The new study indicates that up to 40 percent of the early atmosphere was hydrogen, implying a more favourable climate for the production of pre-biotic organic compounds like amino acids, and ultimately, life. The paper was authored by doctoral student Feng Tian, Prof. Owen Toon and Research Associate Alexander Pavlov of CU-Boulder's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and by Prof. Hans De Sterk of University of Waterloo's Applied Mathematics department. The paper was published in the April 7 issue of Science Express, the online edition of Science Magazine"
Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered
But then again, if it was infavorable, we wouldn't be having this very discussion, would we?
In the post 9/11 world, the atmosphere is used by terroists!
It appears the posted versiond oesn't mention that it was a collaboration between University of Waterloo and University of Colorado at Boulder. The only researcher in Waterloo was Prof Hans De Sterck. Just like to make sure that is clear
DUH!
Else would we be here.
I found out by intense research that early atmosphere had substantial quantities of beer which supported life. Disprove it !!
In a post 9/11 world, a study by researchers at the University of Waterloo indicates that Earth in its current condition probably had substantial quantities of hydrogen in its atmosphere, a surprising finding that may alter the way many terrorists think about how to destroy life on the planet. The new study indicates that up to 40 percent of the early atmosphere was hydrogen, implying a more favourable climate for explosive reactions, death compounds, and ultimately, the destruction of life.
Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
Can anyone tell me how many times these high and mighty evolution scientists have already backpedalled and changed their version of the truth to fit some new finding? I've already lost the count... pathetic, really.
Gosh.... yeah, it's awful how scientists are always changing their mind on encountering new data.
If we had any guts, we'd still believe in ether.
I don't think the parent is really a creationist at all; it's an anonymous coward trolling by pretending to be a creationist, providing a particularly easy straw man argument for us to knock down.
Which is utterly mysterious because there are plenty of authentic nutcases on slashdot.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
The oil companies exterminated these early lifeforms because the companies didn't want hydrogen powered cars getting fuel out of the air.
By killing these early life forms, the companies guaranteed future fossil fuels and thir grip on our present day driving habits.
to make sure the late Earth atmosphere is not.
i saw the baby, and the baby looked at me
It's time for drastic measures
Since 99%+ of known free matter in the universe is hydrogen, and the solar system formed out of... mostly hydrogen... is this really a surprise? I'd actually be shocked to find out that there WASN'T that much hydrogen in the atmosphere when things kicked off. This is like putting out a newsflash "We found something in the middle of the ocean - AND IT WAS WET!!!"
I love articles like this, they help me build up my friend/foe database :D
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
The Catholic church says evolution is a fact. Your "disclaimer" post is blasphemy!
Read, you blasphemous heretic.
Well done, a most beautiful troll.
I wonder how many will bite...
...After several spectacular airship accidents, use of oxygen gas as a filler was phased out in favor of neon.
Probably not so many now that the first reply calls it a troll.
If the shoe fits...
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
It should be modded +1 Funny, I sure got a laugh out of it.
From the summary, it seems that these researchers are now saying that the upper atmosphere was cooler than originally thought, thus atmospheric hydrogen escaped at a slower rate. So these researchers are essentially using a mathematical climate model.
Climate science is very difficult even when we have the actual system to study (modern earth). How can we with any certainty at all know what that system performed like 4 billion years ago? It's time we admit that this research is interesting, but it will always be just speculation backed up data with an amazing depth of variability that is arrived at by making many assumptions.
Is this a case of scientists looking for data that supports a particular theory? They know that life could arise much more easily if hydrogen was more plentiful on early earth, so they pose theories and look for data to support that?
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
Ok, I have just a little issue to take with this troll... God's story hasn't changed at all? God used to be in the clouds. Now we know what's in the clouds, so he's moved elsewhere.
And Einstein didn't believe in God. He was agnostic (though only stated so indirectly), and if I were ambitious, I would dig up quotes to that effect. I just read a book of his writings and speeches.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
While Faith might be a big deal to many, I think we can believe in God without relying on just Faith.
One of the first proofs on the exsistance of God that I read came from Rene Descarte. Descarte asked the question how can any man believe that what he perceives is truthful. He was asking, if I see a yellow sun, how can I trust my perception that the sun is really yellow. Maybe what you see is red, but we both call it yellow. His anwser was, humans are not perfect. But the thought of God is perfect. Furthermore, anywhere you look, people will have an idea that there is a God, a seed is in every human being. Descarte conclused that since we are imperfect beings, how can we concieve of a perfect God unless that knowledge was seeded in us at birth. Descarte also wrote, that God would never decieve us. God is Truth.
I also was reading Memory and Identity by Pope John Paul II this past weekend. He had a very interesting chapter in why we need God. If you believe that Adam and Eve lived in Eden, and they ate from the tree of knowledge, then there are large consequences. Before eating from the tree of knowledge, they never sinned. They lived according to Gods' Will. But after eating from the Tree of Knowledge, they knew good and evil like God knows good and evil. What that means is that they could judge like God judges, they could pick what was good and evil. And that is where all human suffering origniates from. Evil is defined as the absence of some good. And since only God knows true Good, we must live according to his definition, and not ours. Take sex for example. Pope John Paul II wrote there is something better in having mystery, rather than viewing all people as a sexual object. By having mystery, you view people more completely, not just quickly dismissing them. That is why pre-marital sex is evil- there is some good missing.
As society gets more secular and starts making judgements without God, we will become more miserable. That hole people have in their life, the suffering, it is our longing for something more satisfying and Good than the choices we have made.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
I always though his quotes reflected a certain deistic view. That god or some force set everything off to form in what ever way it would, and that god does not interact directly with people or answer prayers.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
God's story has not changed, our interpretation of it has. And it is sad that you can lable someone a Troll because they believe in God.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
So I guess you really weren't trying to be funny.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
I shared the same opinion as you, but the older I get the less "accidental" I think everything is. Humans are fallible, but God is not. There is a question about how much Free Will we really have. I am stating this not from a biblical perspective, but from a scientific and psychological one. B.F. Skinner, a psychologist argued that humans really have zero free will. Everything we do can be explained by 1) genetics we are born with, and 2) how we are conditioned. I dunno how much I agree with him, but it is hard to argue against his point. Every time I think I punched a hole in his theory, I realize it is not so...
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Lots of people seem to be complaining about how science "got it wrong" and how we should all change our religious beliefs because of this.
I always thought this was how science worked. Come up with a theory which fits the data, and if new data comes in then change the theory. It would be stupid if they believed something when they had evidence to the contrary.
Creationism is one of the worst ideas around and not becuase I am a scientist, but also I believe in God. If God had to create everything in 7 days, God wouldnt be as powerful or great as a God that could plan the entire universe with laws so that humanity could be created without God's direct intervention. In other words, God as planner > God as magician.
QED
Einstein was atheist, sometimes scientist say god, speaking metaphorically. Einstein said:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
And by the way, what purpose will it serve to teach people lies? Even if they are not going to study science, they have to be tought facts, not lies. If you keep a population ignorant, they'll be easilly manipulated. As an example, I'm not a biochemist, I'm a Computer Scientist, but all the Organic Chemsitry I learned in high school has been very helpful in my life, to improve my nutrition, and hormonal profile, as part of my goal to be faster and stronger. It has also been helpful to identify all the crap about nutrition and health popular media barfs.
No, the Church only recognises that certain parts of evolutionism are not incompatible with the truth. Other parts, which I believe would include those referenced by this article (disclaimer: I have not RTFA), *do* contradict reality as taught by the Church.
Either way, the Church does not state that any of it is true, only that parts of it are *possibly* true.
Luke-Jr
The conditions could have been unfavorable, and the process extremely lucky to compensate.
...that the atmosphere immediately before the extinction of life on this planet will not be favourable.
Heck, we live in a window of opportunity on this planet. It started when conditions became favourable and it'll end when they become unfavourable, or we blow ourselves up... which after careful thought is pretty much the same thing.
All things considered though, I suppose it's nice that they've found out a bit more about conditions then, but maybe the title of their study should've been a more accurate:
Early Earth atmosphere more favourable to life than we first thought .
objective proof -> compelling, reproducible evidence
There, that's better.
If you accept creationism completely, literally, and unequivocally ("God snapped his fingers"), then why must things be totaly static? He designed, created, and set upon the earth (and everywhere else) things exactly as they are now, never to change? BS. The proof of change is all around.
OTOH, if you are in the evolution camp, where the hell did the cosmic egg/big bang come from? Why can't that be the '6 days', and from then on things 'evolved' into what they are now?
The two are not totally incompatible. And both sides are filled with intelligent people. Wrap your minds around that, and we might get somewhere.
God's story has not changed, our interpretation of it has.
How is this different if you substitute "evolution's" for "God's", or *anything* against which you're railing in favour of "God"?
What you see here may shock and astound you. "Global warming" is a creation of the New World Order, which controls the weather to serve its occult, anti-civilization ends. When you see that the map of deadly storms of past years conforms greatly with the U.N. map of reserve and corridor system to prtect biodiversity, your eyes should be opened to the fact that our weather is being controlled and utilized to create the social engineering so desired by the Illuminati. The "oil for food" scandal is just the tip of the iceberg.
I guess the "if they believed something when they had evidence of the contrary" part of your post is the one that religious people just don't get about science. After all that is almost exactly the definition of religion.
Linux is not Windows
In Korea, slashdot mad-lib jokes are for old people.
Right. I'm amazed at how many people criticize the Bible without ever having read it.
If those theories *WERE* (emphasis for /. readers who don't RTFR) correct in the Discovery Channel's little spiel on dragons (Though I say for now that it's purely speculation,) then dragons, with having such a hydrogen-rich atmosphere, could have actually stored hydrogen gas in some extra set of lungs, used platinum as the ignition source (How that worked I never fully understood) in order to breathe fire.
*BUT* what I would not understand, is that if the atmosphere then, being 40% hydrogen - the lightest gas we know of - How would beasts that heavy be able to fly through such a thin atmosphere without a massive load of difficulty???
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Who needs stickers, just mod it down. The Bible, -1 Overrated since time immemorial.
And I'm amazed that those 970 people don't see that all life on earth is completely ruled by Nature's (read God's, if you prefer) laws. Tornadoes in tornado alley sweep churches away, just like the other houses. If they're built stronger, as determined by material sciences, they stand a better chance. God loves science! God loves engineers! Only their wishes are granted!
And I'm flabbergasted that people deny evolution when it flies right into their face, literally (flies resistant to DDT, for example). What are they going to do when they end up in heaven: Yell at God because he was so smart that he could set things off with a single big bang? Are they going to blame him for not telling explicity to use that 3 pound/1.5 kilo of brains and use their eyes and senses? I'd be mightly embarrassed if I made it to heaven and a good dose of sceptisism had brought me to creationism or intelligent design. If you want to see God, study nature. It is the only place he shows the wonders he created. And accept they way he created things, not how you'd like them to be created or how you're parents/educators told you how he created it.
You're relying for biology and physics on one page of some 2k old book, instead of your own eyes, senses, brains and the gigantic knowledgebase present in the science libraries? A book that self-admits that it isn't the word of god? With 4 different versions by Pete, John, Luke, what more proof do you want that it is humans who wrote that stuff down? Not only are there differences, but even the authors are mentioned by name!
I love religions, because they are so funny. Their disciples have an almighty god, but just for certainty's sake, the disciples must take matters in their own hand. And they fill the newspapers, like 9/11, start a war in Irak, and all that, realising at least the hell part of their belief.
On one thing we agree: I think it is more than likely that we will not fully understand everything. Heck, I even don't get the relativity theory. But one thing I know. If you're looking for truth of what is happening in Nature, don't pick a book with Y2K problems.
PS While you're at it, start reading the Koran. After two failed attempts (thora and bible), the Koran is the latest and greatest of this best selling author. It is 100% true, according to its disciples. Don't forget, Jews, Christians and Muslims all pray to the same god (evidence can be found in the author's books. For example, they all have Abraham talking to the author.)
Orbital radius favorable for sustaining life.
"A study by researchers at the University of Waterloo indicates that Earth in its infancy probably maintained an ideal distance from the Sun, a surprising finding that may alter the way many scientists think about how life began on the planet. The new study indicates that the Earth stayed approximately 1 AU away from the sun, implying a more favourable climate for the production of pre-biotic organic compounds like amino acids, and ultimately, life."
So if accurate, what would that say about our current models of how Mars lost its atmosphere?
of course you can label someone a troll when they bring into the discussion just empty troll reasoning("it is so because i say it is so - now stop telling me it isn't so").
I might believe that there's this over-being called Findelfunk that controls the fate of every being on earth and he lives in a cardboard box in my trunk, he also makes battle with the Gruber who is the satan - and I'd say that I believe this to be literally true and that world is 4 weeks old, but created so that it appears to be billions of years old, also you go to FindelHell if you use too much capital i's. that not trolly and entirely unprovable? well, that's the kind of reasoning you get as proof of that God exists(as a persona). if it is a troll why not label it as such? I might believe the Findelfunk to be 100% true but as a reasonable human being I should understand that the story is unlikely to be viewed as true by others and as such I should not push it without evidence(speaking of which, the sweet thing about such things is that there can't be any evidence as surely God could have fabricated any contrary evidence as a test of faith, boo hoo).
if the religion that he pushed was Findelfunk would you have not thought of him being a troll? of course you would have. the thing is that if someone is so defensive about their religion that they have to get in pissing contests on the internet then they got something screwed on wrong in their heads and oughta be examined or shipped to another country(oh wait, they tried that... now i'm trolling).
now, if you believe one of the theories the hundreds of different religions have to be correct then what exactly makes you believe that christianity has it right? it wasn't the first and it wasn't the last religion to born - all with equally as good 'proof' of their existence. especially this all is sad when IF they truly believed as they tell they do, an all levels, then they as christians WOULD NOT BITCH about being ridiculed for their faith, they would just go on living peacefully and exploit these theories to get most out of life. bible doesn't tell you to be a jackass and get involved in pissing contest about who has the right to believe what when you got nothing to stand on anyways, the bible tells you to respect others(well, new testament for most parts anyways - can't say as much of the old... it's more of a survival guide for a small community that nobody likes of). of course, whats in the bible has in the end not that much to do what is taught to people about religion and this differs vastly from branch to branch - some people are taught it as a moral guideline and for some it is taught as being literately true to every last word(and conviently forgetting to tell anything about HISTORY of christianity and how it has transformed over the centuries into what it is today, which forms a big base of how you would view the whole institution).
different churces have had different stances on different 'theories' for several centuries, some of which have later been accepted and some of which have not - buying your way into heaven was perfectly acceptable at one point, at other times you would have gotten there directly because of all sins being forgiven(but hey, you need hell or people won't act properly). the church has flexed with the times considerably and totally new ideas have been introduced as gods will to some(banning homosexuality, allowing homosexuality, banning alcohol, allowing alcohol, collecting shitloads of taxes, keeping armies, spreading the word with sword for purposes of control).
look, if some guy would come to you telling that he found some plates from the forest that are a gift from god and he wouldn't show them to you(but still, would tell you that theres some complex codes for living there).. how would you react? believe everything straight on? unlikely.
if some guy tells you that he has gods permission for a war that he got through a vision.. would you believe him to be sane and fit to lead your country into battle? unlikely as well unl
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
First off, note that to say Catholics pray to Mary, the definition being used for prayer must be "making a request" or "spiritual communication" for the statement to be true at all. Catholics do *not* worship Mary.
Regarding communication with the dead: Mary and the saints are alive in Heaven. If you mean that they are 'dead' by not being in the physical world, then God Himself is also dead in the same sense.
The Pope has been given authority by Christ Himself as the rock upon which the Church is built (Jesus founds the Catholic Church on His rock/Peter in Matthew 16:18-19). No, this doesn't mean everything the Pope says or does is correct or true, but it does give him the authority the lead the Church.
Now, on the topic of unbiblical teachings, Protestant beliefs are quite fallicious:
- Protestants reject Jesus's teaching that the bread and wine becomes his actual body and blood. People took it literally when Jesus said it was so and Jesus did not say "no, no... I meant that symbolically"
- Protestants believe that the Bible is the sole source of theological truth. The Bible itself opposes this view and points people toward the Church.
In addition, the original protestant (Martin Luther) also originated the idea of anti-semitism. The WWII holocaust might never had occured if Martin Luther had not rebelled against the Church. Is protestantism worth the lives taken by WWII?
Luke-Jr
One of Lee Strobel's huge anti-abiogenesis claims is that the early Earth atmosphere was nothing like the atmosphere those 1950s experiments that created amino acids was like. This article just destroyed his strongest creationist argument. I wonder what he will say.
What the fuck does evolution have to do with the atmosphere of the Earth? What are you religious retards doing on Slashdot, anyway? Shouldn't you be out roughing up some blacks or homosexuals?
interestingly evolution as a whole is a framework of notions about the origins and development of all the observable forms of the earth/universe.
the framework is based on very simple facts. (the facts would be a digression here)
on the other hand, Creation as told in the bible contains assertions (and implications) that are patently false: there is no firmament. the moon isn't a "lamp". the SUN is actually not any different than the stars.
those aren't just quibbles, although fundamentalists will treat them as such, and embarrass themselves in trying to make sense of the bible (for example by calling it all poetic, rather than literal; where's the biblical/divine declaration of the Poetic Mode??).
apart from the conspicuous passages of Genesis, (and apart from the outright contradictions contained throughout the bible), there are very simple and amusing questions we can ask ourselves: what language was god speaking when he said "let there be light" ?
it's a pretty poignant question. what dialect? (it would be amazing if any dialect remained the same for 600 years, let alone 6,000 years or whatever)
other good questions concern man being made in God's image. GOd made man in his image. men and women have some interesting.... plumbing.... that allows them to (be fruitful and) multiply. did god just pull the whole scheme out of a hat?
it's bizarre to consider that if the divine accounts of creation are true, God went with the whole penis/vagina/insertion/friction method, instead of just some hand-holding and spontaneous pregnancy.
think about it.
Theology is fine. (some) christians are great. i love em. my point here isn't even that creation is stupid, BUT that the biblical account was written by some guy(s) who weren't very smart. in fact, they were idiots.
yes, the writers were idiots. but this picture changes once we recognize that the texts/narratives that form the Bible we know underwent their own evolution throughout prebiblical times.... obvioiusly becoming very convoluted and idiotic...
You just defined science, good job. See unliek religion science doesn't pretend to know the "truth" but simply have theories as to what the truth might be. So as they get new evidence they change their theories. Now, you might ask what's the point?
Well quite simply the theories seem to be rather close to the "truth" (by definition really, if new evidence contradicts a theory it needs to be revised) so they can be used to predict things. For example, you can use the theories of Newton to describe a ball falling down even though we know they are not really correct. Nevertheless for many problems they provide a very good way of predicting effects.
Evolution too can be used to predict many things and a simple search through a scientific paper database (such as PubMed) will show a vast amount of papers which use evolution in one way or another.
This article is about abiogenesis NOT evolution. Evolution is about natural selection ultimately can cause species to change into different species over enough time. Abiogenesis is about how life can be created from non-life. While creationists frequently convolute these (and other) theories, scientists should adhere to more rigorous standards.
does that mean that Humanity could have been an accident of nature? Makes too much sense these days... Humans = bug; bug != feature
eric http://www.ericdfields.com/
> *BUT* what I would not understand, is that if the atmosphere then, being 40% hydrogen - the lightest gas we know of - How would beasts that heavy be able to fly through such a thin atmosphere without a massive load of difficulty???
They could wait and evolve after we had an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I've heard plenty of different version of "God's story." Each Christian sect has a slightly different version and/or interpretation. Many even believe in Evolutionary Theory and consider "God's story" to be allegorical. And then there are non-Christian religions which have totally different version's of "God's story." A lot of Creationists like to present a unified front against evolution, but we all know they are very much divided.
I believe we should teach creationism in schools, it will serve more people better. Out of a high school graduation class of 1000, how many will go on to a career in science? Say that 700 of them go on to college and that 300 go into the work force. Of the 700, 100 decide they want to major in physics or chemistry. Of them 70 get weeded out. You now have 30 people who will continue. The other 970 people will be better served with an education that focuses on creationism.
Ahh, so that's it. It isn't really about the truth. Tt is about what people need to know or what YOU think will serve them better. I have a better idea. Lets teach people to seek the truth and give the best known facts. At least that would be honest. You are talking about manipulating people.
We are living in a time with relative ethics.
Name a time when ethics were absolute and didn't vary widely between cultures and individuals. Do you mean Biblical times when people were stoned to death for adultery?
We are living in an increasing secular society, where life means little.
As opposed to when? Biblical times where people were, again, stoned to death for petty crimes? And whole cities were struck down by a vengeful God? How do you account for the fact that most modern societies today have abolished capital punishment? Really, I think yoiu are projecting your cynicism and disillusionment more than describing the way things are or where they are headed. You are romanticizing the past.
We all watched in horror as the Teri Shiavo in Florida was starved to death.
Actually, many watched in relief as a severely brain damaged woman was allowed to die. Depends on how you look at it.
That never should have happened, in the light that there is information that her husband might have beat her the night she collapsed, and the uncertainty of her wishes.
What shouldn't have happened is that the story should never have made the news. It should never have made it to congress. It was a private matter and I am appalled that people like felt you needed to make it your business. I know you think you have some clue about the situation, but you don't.
Even our most prized and well written scientists believe in God. Einstein believed in God, he was quoted as saying "I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are just details".
They believed in God and yet they didn't believe in Creation. Why do you tihnk that was? Actually, the original sciensts did believe in creation until they started investigating the natural world and found that it couldn't have been created as "God's story" says.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Regardless of how "favorable" this supposed conditions are, the fact remains - Life does not come from non-life, and never has. Its a law of science, and something that evolutionists continue to struggle mightily to overcome. For those with questions regarding Creation Science, I would recommend http://www.creationscience.com/ I would also recommend Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith" for the legions of cynical /. visitors I seem to see - there ARE legitimate, real reasons to hold Christianity as a true and personal belief system.
Besides, why exactly is it that you believe in no God (for you atheists). Its ultimately a step of faith, just as is Christianity. What verifiable and objective facts can we see to verify atheism?
-jajawarrior
> I am amazed at all the scientists who think they know "facts" when their theories are not really anything more then a "best guess"
There's a difference between a guess and a model based on evidence.
Also, there's a difference between facts and the theories that explain them. It is a fact that life exists on earth; we would like to have a theory that explains how it came about.
> I believe we should teach creationism in schools, it will serve more people better.
So you applaud religion as the opiate of the masses, and volunteer to serve as one of the Guardians?
> We are living in a time with relative ethics. We are living in an increasing secular society, where life means little.
Other than the "increasing" part, that has always been true.
> We all watched in horror as the Teri Shiavo in Florida was starved to death.
I didn't watch in horror; I applauded the courts for finally letting her die with dignity.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
One of the key question underlying studies of life on earth is simply how did "life", RNA or DNA based, come to be encapsulated in the cell membrane? Studies of prebiotic life tend to skip over the issue. Dr.S. Kauffman, author of books on Complexity has offered a few alternative scenarios but the question of how life came to have a place to call 127.0.0.1 remains open to conjecture. Non-equilibrium open systems giving rise to complexity have held out alot of promise to answering basic questions arising from studies of prebiotic life but the question remains how do they get the caramilk inside a caramilk bar.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
(From the UW article)
I have a question for the abiogenesis advocates on this forum. When was Miller's experiment NOT relevant? Toon says the experiments are relevant *again*; that implies they weren't relevant at some time in the past. When was that?
Of course, I don't ask the question without knowing the answer. I also ask it because it points out a significant flaw in the way we teach abiogenesis theory. The answer to my question is, Miller's experiments were rendered moot several DECADES ago, when all the models pointed to early Earth having an oxygenating atmosphere. No one ever has come up with a model or scenario that would give early Earth the required reducing atmosphere that would make Miller's experiment relevant. But, every time I have pointed this out to evolutionists/abiogenesis advocates over the last 2 decades (and I have done so several times in the last 20 years), they have uniformly denied its significance.
This continues the characteristic that I find universally in the evolutionary community. They refuse to acknowledge any flaws in their accepted evolutionary model until after they believe they have a solution to those flaws.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
...when the atmosphere had lots of both H2 and O2 would have been, well, a blast.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Does Earth run Linux?
Rediculous is ridiculous!
"We all watched in horror as the Teri Shiavo in Florida was starved to death."
I hear you, Brother!
And didn't we both look on in disbelief when Pope John Paul the Second died, instead of entering a persistent vegetative state?
Terrible.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered
Once more we see the "theory not fact" song and dance, and once more there is no indication that the poster even knows enough about what he is repeating to provide a logical argument in it's support. Evolution is indeed a fact. The "theory" is in regards to the consequences of "descent with modification," a phrase actually used by Darwin, unlike "evolution" which is a word that was applied to Darwin's work by Spencer in the later 19th C.
The empirical facts that Darwin argued from are that "descent with modification" is the norm of reproduction (your children are not your clones) and that selection can effectively create a specialized subset of your descendants whose genetics differs from yours profoundly:
The Great Dane and the Dachshund, the miniature horse and the Percheron are no longer physically capable of cross breeding without human intervention; domesticated potatoes and tomatoes are edible while their wild relatives can be deadly; only with the development of DNA analysis were we able to be confident about the wild parental stock that maize is descended from).
The theory is that these two empirical facts of nature can produce a new species. Since descent takes place with modification as a norm, it is pretty much a mathematical certainty over time, even without the action of selection to consider, that drift alone will cause the extinction or gradual alteration of a parent species into a new one. When selection acts, whether it is a farmer breeding or climatic changes, the selection filters the descendants, Again, this is a fact that cannot be avoided. When a species takes up a great enough geographic range then local or regional conditions can (must actually - but you can think that through on your own) effect reproductive success selectively.
Now, just for clarification, just which aspect of the "theory" do you regard as theoretical: The two empirical facts, or is it the self-evident outcome?
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
OK, I will take your word that it's worthy of looking into. And, I'll base everything else I do on strictly faith, like the Writings.
Are people so arrogant they refuse to see that their thoughts and personhood have extremely little or no value to the Universe, except maybe to themselves? That they somehow have minimized, for a short while, the universal entropy even a rock experiences, which in itself is a grand thing to accomplish?
I would like to be under the nurturing hand of a Creator, as my personal life, like many others, could often use a strong hand. But I don't ever see it because all I ever meet and see at church are deviants; well dressed and smiling, but deviants all the same with something to atone for.
The debt they're in, the kids they didn't raise or abandoned, the gossip, the backstabbing, the judgements, the adultery, the networking, the dishonest business deal, because their wife or husband is uptight, racist, a prude, or a slut?
Empty philosophy, agreed, but realistic.
Your one good point is that a timescale of some random number of gigayears between about 10 and about 30 is kind of difficult to reconcile with 6 days. It's not just the gigayears, it's that the phraseology in question (along with the entire literary context) leaves absolutely no room for anything other than literal days. They are indeed irreconcilable.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Lee Strobel's argument is this: "There is no plausable model that makes Earth early atmosphere one where abiogenesis is possible". This argument can be refuted by just one plausable model for an early Earth atmosphere where abiogenesis is possible. The model doesn't need to be testable. It only needs to be plausable to destroy Lee Strobel's argument.
Now, I'm not saying that I think Earth did have this hydrogen-rich atmosphere. I'm just saying that, since such an atmosphere is reasonable scientific conjecture, Lee Strobel is going to have to bring out some more creationist chestnuts to continue his promotion of fundamentalism and attack mainstream science. Which science will refute in turn.
"Thin" refers to the density of the gas, not its molecular weight. Hydrogen is not necessarily any "thinner" than any other gas.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Wow since you have so much faith in the scientific process, I invite you to answer God's questions in Job 38-40.
Ah, yes. One must wonder just where the book of Job came from. It's about the closest thing we get to Eastern mythology in the Bible. There is no justice in that story. Justice is not an attribute of the universe; it is an entirely man-made construct.
When Job petitioned God for an explanation for what had happened to him, what did God say? ``Gee, I'm really sorry, but you see, there was this bet that I made with the devil, and well, I had to do all this to you in order to win the bet...'' No! God simply said, in a beautifully poetic manner, ``I am great! (Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?)'' There is no apology, no explanation. Simply, the almightly deity smiting his creation, demonstating the fact that He is God.
At that, no Greek would have done what Job did. Just look at Prometheus. Pinned down, in desparate dependence on Zeus's mercy, yet in his predicament, he shakes his fist at the mighty god, ``I care less than nothing for Zeus; let him do what he wants!''
My apologies for the off-topicness here, but I get a kick out of mythology. I think the trouble with most religious types is that they read their scriptures like they read the morning newspaper. You really don't get much out of it by approaching it that way. That's not how the scriptures were written. They are meant to be read like poems, because that's just what they are.
An unjust law is no law at all. - St. Augustine
PS While you're at it, start reading the Koran. After two failed attempts (thora and bible), the Koran is the latest and greatest of this best selling author. It is 100% true, according to its disciples. Don't forget, Jews, Christians and Muslims all pray to the same god (evidence can be found in the author's books. For example, they all have Abraham talking to the author.) Jews will claim that none of the three groups believe in the same God. They were the original religion. They claim to have recieved the original instructions from God.
Christians will argue that both Jews and Christians believe in the same God. And muslim believe that all believe in the same God. (Yet the call the former infidels and kill them, interesting). Get your facts straight. Christians claim that Jews and Christians believe in the same God because, Jesus was the fulfillment to the Jewish Prophecy. Try reading some of the claims and the fulfillments of Jesus some of them are very interesting.
And add Islam into the mix. They believe that Jesus was a prophet. Which doesnt completely make sense because their prophet was claiming to be God. How they justify this is through claiming that both the Jewish and Christian writings have been distorted through time but this makes little sense considering there are thousands copies of the originals varying by little (maybe a word or a letter) So the original texts probably didnt change. Claiming that they believe in the same God was probably a ploy to incorporate more followers into his belief system. And once incorporated they can't live it otherwise they are killed.
Talking about the same person doesnt mean the they are the same. Do a little research r thinking before you make those claims.
There's no gentler way to put it. It simply will not fly.
Why not?
We have here two basically opposing world-views, one called Materialism and one loosely called Deism. Materialism, most simply put, says that no miracles occur. At all.
If no miracles occur, then we need something like evolution to explain how superheated hydrogen plasma could possibly turn into Kelly Hu or Nicola Tesla. And it must explain all of it, else miracles are required.
Sometimes a distinction is drawn between "chemical evolution", which gets us from H2 to, arguably, cells - and "biological evolution" which gets us from cells (more or less) to astronauts.
The line separating the two concepts must necessarily be vague until everyone agrees on a clear-cut definition of what is alive and what is not, but the whole shebang is "molecules to man evolution" as we know it and any distinction is inherently artificial since essentially identical principles must be in operation for both stages.
Trying to saw off biological evolution and treat it separately is utterly pointless if chemical evolution is insufficient to get us from hydrogen to biology in the first place.
Both processes must be driven by random perturbations of some of the existing materials filtered (selected) by interactions with other existing materials, else we're in miracle territory again.
It turns out that we're in miracle territory anyway, since chemical evolution requires either a miracle of structure, or a miraculously high number of chemical interactions between the roughly 10^81 atoms in our universe during the roughly 10^18 seconds it may have existed in order to form even relatively simple organic molecules, the precursors to proteins.
Afficiondos of the Miller and Urey experiments are referred to any competent history of Miller since then.
The one argument against this dilemma which appears to make any kind of sense is "the anthropic principle", which says, in essence, "we're here because we're here". It postulates a more-or-less infinite number of universes, the vast majority of which are in one way or another off-stage and failed to produce life. The foolishness of this kind of reasoning can be shown by examining the likelihood of an anthropically produced universe being such a well-matched place for life to have developed in.
Our universe is both well-matched to supporting life and extremely unlikely to have developed life. Change any of hundreds of physical parameters very much and life becomes impossible (in most cases, even planets and stars become impossible). If we had arrived at thgis universe by chance, the odds are fairly extreme that the it would be far more hostile to life, that the "tweakable" paramaters would be off by a fair amount rather than being a cosmic bullseye.
If, on the other hand, you allow supernatural intervention, there is no need for any kind of molecules-to-man evolution at all. People will inevitable go on and argue (this is one of Eugenie Scott's favourite hobby-horses) that supernatural intervention renders science impossible, but that's mere rhetorical twaddle. Engineers and statisticians have been dealing with that kind of imponderable quite calmly for centuries now.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
It is an interesting hypothesis, but it is not worth very much until the experimental evidence substantiates it. I believe that if you are more interested in scientific knowledge than in parsing sentences, you will be more interested in what the reliability of this UW study is. After all, not every University is located on top of Mount Sinai!
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
Now they just have to show how this "early atmosphere" with 40% hydrogen can be used in an experiment similar to the Stanley Miller experiment to produce amino acids.... (the Miller expt didn't have 40% hydrogen). And then you have to show how these amino acids can form proteins... and how DNA can arise. Amino acids have eve been found on meteor rocks... But just because you have the building block for life, it still doesn't explain how life formed in teh first place. Just as having bricks doesn't explain how houses are built.
Each Christian sect has a slightly different version and/or interpretation. Many even believe in Evolutionary Theory and consider "God's story" to be allegorical. A lot of Creationists like to present a unified front against evolution, but we all know they are very much divided.
A lot of Christians take a negative stand against Evolution because thats what they are told by their pastors/priests. Rather than reviewing the data for themselves. And the christian community is divided into 3 main sects. Young Earth, Old Earth/Progressive, and Theistic Evolution.
And most of the opposition to evolution comes from the Young Earth Creationist category. They happen to be the least scientifical. They evaluate nature word for word from a nonscientifical passage. Then when things don't line up nature must be wrong or they must find someway to justify it.
Progressive Creationists try to line up the data of nature with what the Bible teaches. And while this group still has its flaws. It has many very interesting points. (Read some books by Hugh Ross.)
The third group evaluates solely on nature. They say a nonscientific book book should have no say on what happened in nature. Hence you have Christians believing in evolution.
Each camp its strengths and weaknesses. Some have way more than others. I personally would fall into the Progressive creationist camp (#2). Things get sticky when you take a mass group of uneducated people and has nonscientific people teach them about occured in nature.
Likewise, one could say that the way evolution happened hasn't changed, only our theories about it have.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
(Prepared with material from the University of Waterloo and University of Boulder at Colorado.)
Man, UW really needs to proofread their press releases.
I'm going to the casino. Don't gamble.
Some people can't tell the difference. Sarcasm is not troll.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
If you haven't read the bible yet, check out what Jesus said and did. After you've studied Jesus, you'll know he was God. Once you know Jesus is Lord, then its easier to accept that God created Earth. People who want to tear apart the faith start with things you need to take on faith, they don't start with the things that are at the core values.
God spoke to me.
Current Earth atmosphere not favourable to life.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
Right or wrong, it seems you have nothing to look forward to.
Before you get too comfortable with the terms of your forthcoming death, however, do try to spend a few minutes trying to appreciate how poorly science explains the phenomenon of consciousness. It's not like you have anything to lose.
Crerationism is a result of Aaron and Moses not being able to afford fifteen billion year's woth of papyrus.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
1. we evolved from monkeys
2. monkeys live in social groups dominated by an alpha male
3. fear and respect of the alpha male became a deeply embedded element of monkey psychology in monkey genes, or else if you went up to the alpha male and stuck your tongue out at him or threw your feces at him you were smacked off the tree by the alpha male and eaten by the stegodonts or trilobytes below and your genes would disappear
4. many years later, we evolved from monkeys but we still had some monkey psychology left in our brains
5. proof of this is that some humans still need to believe in the UAM- the ultimate alpha male, aka god, or yahweh, or allah... that even if no alpha male is around, the deeply embedded fear and respect of the alpha male in their genes forces some people to conjure him out of their imagination to explain their monkey-like urges to tremble before the alpha male
6. to such humans, the idea that life can evolve without the guidance of a UAM is a deeply troubling thought
7. therefore, evolution is proven by the existence of creationists: their deeply monkey psychology need for belief in a UAM is direct evidence that we evolved from monkeys
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
No, he really didn't.
Or even better...
Of course, Christians like to repeat the lie that Einstein believed in their particular god. You're not one of those lying Christians, are you?
You are 0w3nd.... at least give in gracefully and accept you are wrong, outclassed, and out-thought...
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
The first life was probably a self-reproducing ARN, ,
Ribozyme
that was made from rather simple molecules like
Pyrimidine
ARN is very fragile, so the evolution toward protecting capsules and ADN (which is still a bit fragile) seems logical.
I realy like that second quote, it's realy something you should have read and though about before you wrote your finishing sentences. Do you realy believe we know so much more today than we did than when Einstein wrote those words? Or backing up a little in his quote, to the part that describes alot of vocal posters on slashdot, the "professional atheist", think about what he says there, it might change your perspective a bit.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
... the number of logical fallacies per sentence is close to maximum. That takes effort. Well done.
And no I wont answer your question because you really don't want to know the answer do you? But that's ok, if it makes you happy ... just don't expect the rest of us to go along.
Bitter and proud of it.
Don't you hate it when you think of a smart reply and send it to the wrong person. Sorry sport. Wrong target.
Bitter and proud of it.
I belive there is life all over the universe.. We may be the only inteligent life in this area of the universe.. With the universe being so young, we might be too far and too young to recieve radio transmissions from other life.. Radio waves might not be strong enough to make it here for us to detect and listen to... Bummer.
Was this hydrogen bound to oxygen, by any chance? In a ratio of, say, two to one?
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
That isn't true, evolutionary science can, and has explained how eyes could have evolved.
Here is brief blurb: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_0 11_01.html
That's brilliant.
Building a better ribosome since 1997
It was favorable to life by the third day.
(Man, did we go offtopic with this discussion.)
/.ers should be educated enough to make sense of all this matter (at least I hope so). We've developed enough neurons to be academic to an extent. The images projected to our eyes through reading, the sound waves of that hit our ears, and the sense of hitting certain keys on the keyboard through the execution of thinking are just some of the signals that bombard our brain and makes us respond. Not long ago (in the glacial sense) did we conceptualize our surroundings in more simplified terms as homonids. Quite some time ago, as single-celled organisms, we could only execute certain signals simply by our surrounding environment and nothing more. Just a smidge beforehand (10^12 y), some simple clusters of atomic and subatomic paritcles managed to form the chain reaction of differentiable matter that formed our universe. In other words, we continue to discover life bit-by-bit, and it's beautiful if we can perceive life both inherently and intelligibly. Education forms knowledge; knowledge fosters power; power leads towards the efficiency of comprehension.
Since people are discussing the "objective" analysis of whether God exists, just know that it is of personal preference. As what many in this thread have said, the belief in a deity or deities relies of having faith on the inexplicables of life. Indeed, we've reasoned for many normal processes, occurrences or events. We keep reasoning over the events pertaining to the advent of our universe and our planet. Some of us accept it on deified faith; some of us accept it on comprehension; and some of us fall in between both schools of thought.
Nature and evolution reasons faithful reliances to objective comprehension, but, nonetheless, everyone should be appreciative of the beauty of living and experiencing our surroundings; it's just we measuring these issues to a certain degree. For example, I can have faith over the "five senses of life" while understanding and appreciating the biological processes that go along with those senses (heterotrimeric G protein systems, innervations, et al).
IMHO, relying on either blind faith or blind reasoning is undesirable (both terms should not be used interchangably). Instead, it's important to see all aspects of these topics of discussion and make sense of them in our own mind. In other words, read the fine print and let the words sink-in.
"Of course, Christians like to repeat the lie that Einstein believed in their particular god. You're not one of those lying Christians, are you?"
/. users stereotyping other /. users- it really makes for a productive session.
Nice! Stereotyped!
Gotta love
Besides, how does what Einstein believe change what others should believe? Just because he didn't have a personal faith doesn't mean others should follow, without deciding for themselves...
This whole article and all the comments here have just been about stereotyping other users and their beliefs- nothing has been covered in a factual sense, just "you're wrong, and I'm right" statements...
This article is not nearly conclusive enough to be considered fact- I mean- we weren't even there! We have no evidence either- just models and theories.
Since evolution is a theory taught in schools, why aren't others presented? Kids grow up and go to uni believing just one method for how the universe and everything in it came about, and how they function. They rarely challenge this, and this closed cycle continues...
No public schools teach about Intelligent Design? Why not? Is it because they aren't well-versed, or because they choose not to, because it rivals their own beliefs of evolution?
Tis a weak world we live in, when society's belief systems and science methods are based on a closed circle of theories. Science claims to be an open-minded field, but suddenly everyone starts screaming 'nananananan!' when someone mentions Creation or Intelligent Design as possibilities...we can't discount these when we count evolution- it's not fair to science as a whole...
If you take the mixture of our current atmosphere, and compare it with what's theorized to be the atmosphere back then, the atmosphere itself was not as dense then as it is now. With such a thinner atmosphere, it'd be quite hard to get enough resistance to lift something so large off the ground and into the air, the amount of work would be so much greater.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.