Liquid Crystal Phases of DNA, Beginning of Life?

An anonymous reader writes "A team led by the University of Colorado at Boulder and the University of Milan has discovered some unexpected forms of liquid crystals of ultrashort DNA molecules immersed in water, providing a new scenario for a key step in the emergence of life on Earth. CU-Boulder physics Professor Noel Clark said the team found that surprisingly short segments of DNA, life's molecular carrier of genetic information, could assemble into several distinct liquid crystal phases that "self-orient" parallel to one another and stack into columns when placed in a water solution. Life is widely believed to have emerged as segments of DNA- or RNA-like molecules in a prebiotic "soup" solution of ancient organic molecules.

Comments

Life?

[Random BedHead Ed]

Life was started when the Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed it across the universe to this location. Stop shattering my worldview with these so-called "discoveries."

Re:Life?

[Kjella]

Obviously off on the religious mockery tangent, but this isn't really offtopic. If (I'd say when) we discover how to make life from inanimate matter, there's bound to be yet another clash between Genesis and Abiogenesis. And some people will yet again claim that the Book is right and science is wrong. Obviously religion gets a lot less personal if God is someone that once snapped his fingers and there was a Big Bang - and that everything that follows can be replicated in a test tube. But I think that we in the not too distant future will make the connection from inanimate molecules into primitive replicating beings. And if God doesn't smite us down at that point for invading his turf he never will.

Re:Life?

[sigzero]

Where did the stuff that made up the "Big Bang" come from? If it was inert what was the "catalyst"? I don't think there ever will be a connection from the inanimate to the animate.

Re:Life?

[brainnolo]

The fact that you do not get it, or nobody gets it does not mean that there is no explanation. Our brain is amazing but I doubt that it is the top intelligence ever achievable by a living creature, so it is plausible that we are just not intelligent enough to understand some things.

Re:Life?

[foniksonik]

We're plenty intelligent enough... we just don't have enough data and probably never will, but we can make guesses - more educated guesses than those made by early philosophers (religious academics and natural academics). Personally I don't see the disconnect between early science/religion and modern science. They sought answers with what information they had available.. we do the same. Just because some cult of people want to believe that we were at the pinnacle of understanding some 2 - 3 thousand years ago, doesn't discount the efforts made at the time.

Those Rabbis, Greeks and monks were very smart people - they also had to deal with politics and ignorance however and sometimes the best way to deal with that is to dumb it down to a lowest common denominator. "That's right, God made that happen. Don't go to war over it... it was a miracle. Now give us money so we can keep teaching your kids how to read/write and count to ten."

Re:Life?

[Colin Smith]

So. Who created god?

Answer me that and I'll get down on my knees and worship him. The bigger one that is... Our god would obviously just be a little godling in comparison... I like to think of him as a Mini-Me god.

Re:Life?

[someone1234]

How did you draw the latter conclusion from the former questions?

Re:Life?

[CODiNE]

Its interesting to me the idea that only God can create life. I dont know if there's a scriptural basis for it or if its something people just assume is true. Perhaps those that believe in immortal souls would view it differently than those who believe a person or animal IS a soul like Jehovah's Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists. If life requires some spiritual soul then yes it would make sense to say only God could make life. However if we really are just our bodies then I see no reason that man couldnt eventually duplicate what God has made.

Re:Life?

[MightyMartian]

Why do you even think your questions make sense?

Re:Life?

[MightyMartian]

Even if your conjecture is true, why not the Giant Invisible Green Panda or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Three Infinite Donuts of Doom?

Re:Life?

[LouisZepher]

If only I had mod points (and then, having not posted, of course). Very well put, I doubt I could've said it any better.

Re:Life?

[Nafeasonto]

Probability and Spontaneous Proteins

17 What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones--no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup?

18 The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 1050 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe!

19 Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell's activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 1040,000! "An outrageously small probability," Hoyle asserts, "that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." He adds: "If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court."13

20 However, the chances actually are far fewer than this "outrageously small" figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: "Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life."14

The Remarkable Genetic Code

21 More difficult to obtain than these are nucleotides, the structural units of DNA, which bears the genetic code. Five histones are involved in DNA (histones are thought to be involved in governing the activity of genes). The chance of forming even the simplest of these histones is said to be one in 20100--another huge number "larger than the total of all the atoms in all the stars and galaxies visible in the largest astronomical telescopes."15

22 Yet greater difficulties for evolutionary theory involve the origin of the complete genetic code--a requirement for cell reproduction. The old puzzle of 'the chicken or the egg' rears its head relative to proteins and DNA. Hitching says: "Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein."16 This leaves the paradox Dickerson raises: "Which came first," the protein or the DNA? He asserts: "The answer must be, 'They developed in parallel.'"17 In effect, he is saying that 'the chicken' and 'the egg' must have evolved simultaneously, neither one coming from the other. Does this strike you as reasonable? A science writer sums it up: "The origin of the genetic code poses a massive chicken-and-egg problem that remains, at present, completely scrambled."18

23 Chemist Dickerson al

Re:Life?

[Eivind Eklund]

As in the zen-koan: "Mu".

That means your questions includes assumptions that makes them wrong. Please learn more about the issues, and you will get better questions. The process of educating you about these areas is longer than I can do in a single, simple post - I'll just say that there are a ton of information out there that will make you get better questions :) It is also very much fun to learn.

Eivind.

soup

[badran]

So basically we all started out as alphabet soup......

Re:soup

[starglider29a]

NO, no, no... DNA and carbon-based life was an accident. The life forms of a bajillion years ago were evolved from carbon nanostructures and interstellar dust, what we would call robotic lifeforms. The DNA liquid crystals were an accidental byproduct of failed display technology. One of the researchers accidentally punctured his liquid crystal display with a tool, rinsed it off in salt water, it drained into a sewer full of salt, iron, trace metals and lots of carbon (hey, robotic life has to poop), and off it went.

Ironically, those carbon nano based lifeforms were wiped out in a mutual jihad as they fought over whether or not the billions of lines of code that defined their existence evolved through chance or were part of an "intelligent design".

Hey, that makes as much sense as the Bible AND the Evolutionists put together. ;-)

Re:soup

[Anonymous Coward]

Modded flamebait? Who is going to flame the poster? The Bible thumpers, the Evolutionists, or a cooperative effort of both? If the latter, then that would be a first. I, for one, would welcome our Creation/Evolutionists Overlords.

Re:soup

[badran]

you forgot the ancestors of the primal Robo-life forms....

Re:soup

[piedmont67]

Sorry, no dice. If anyone bothers to read this blurb, they never once claimed to create anything resembling life or anything in the life structure. They never created anything that would be a precursor to life. They never created anything that could be added to something to create life. They only claimed to "provide a new scenario for a key step".

The false statement that life is widely believed to have emerged as short strands of DNA could have been proven true if only that is what they did. But again, of course, they did not.

The "pre-biotic soup" is getting really cold, having been invented by lunatics.

neat

[wizardforce]

"The key observation with respect to early life is that this aggregation of nano DNA strands is possible only if they form duplexes," Clark said. "In a sample of chains in which the bases don't match and the chains can't form helical duplexes, we did not observe liquid crystal ordering."

The CU-Boulder and University of Milan team began a series of experiments to see how short the DNA segments could be and still show liquid crystal ordering, said Clark. The team found that even a DNA segment as short as six bases, when paired with a complementary segment that together measured just two nanometers long and two nanometers in diameter, could still assemble itself into the liquid crystal phases, in spite of having almost no elongation in shape. Subsequent tests by the team involved mixed solutions of complementary and noncomplementary DNA segments, said Clark. The results indicated that essentially all of the complementary DNA bits condensed out in the form of liquid crystal droplets, physically separating them from the noncomplementary DNA segments. "We found this to be a remarkable result," Clark said. "It means that small molecules with the ability to pair up the right way can seek each other out and collect together into drops that are internally self-organized to facilitate the growth of larger pairable molecules. "In essence, the liquid crystal phase condensation selects the appropriate molecular components, and with the right chemistry would evolve larger molecules tuned to stabilize the liquid crystal phase. If this is correct, the linear polymer shape of DNA itself is a vestige of formation by liquid crystal order."

one of the requirements for life is that you have an environment that supports molecular self assembly and recognition, this experiment seems to show that this is the case with DNA and RNA strands as short as 6 bases and can select for more stable configurations over time. It's the beginnings of evolutionary natural selection- base pairs assemble into structures that have certain desireable characteristics.

Re:neat

[E 99]

one of the requirements for life is that you have an environment that supports molecular self assembly and recognition, this experiment seems to show that this is the case with DNA and RNA strands as short as 6 bases and can select for more stable configurations over time. It's the beginnings of evolutionary natural selection- base pairs assemble into structures that have certain desireable characteristics.

How can one base pair be any more desirable than any other base pair, unless it exists within the context of a cell, or in the context of some other preexisting complex machinery that will treat the the strand as a blueprint for manufacturing another kind of molecule?

Re:neat

[wizardforce]

some strands of genetic material are catalytic- the point is that genetic material isn't just information encoding, it also can act as a part of the cellular machinery its self. it catalyzes its own cleaving, acts as a primitive amino acid string ribosome and catalyzes the formation of other molecules. only later do these molecular systems evolve into what we now would recognize as a functional genetic system based on DNA or RNA as the main carriers of information. is it efficient? no, not really, it is quite slow but it is an example of a very rudimentary evolutionary system that can replicate and select for DNA/RNA strands that are better than those before them. a strand of RNA that can catalyze its own replication will outcompete one that is slower- mutations happen constantly since the whole system has little in the way of genetic repair yet so things change fast. modern day ribosomes are composed of RNA and protein, this is probably an evolutionary fossil from the first "ribosomes" that strung amino acids together. for example, amino acids self assemble in the presence of higher temperature and acidity into apo-proteins which are by themselves catalytic. it is likely that these apo-proteins or any polypeptides associated with nucleic acids under conditions that later evolved into primitive ribosomes. at first these complexes probably speed up the rate and accuracy by which genetic material is replicated and further down the line had a dual purpose- to systhesize its self more efficiently and then the evolution of a genetic system with a small number of base pairs acting to encode for amino acids directly ratehr than catalyzing the synthesis and stringing together of polypeptides. specialization leads to better efficiency and eventually other components of the cell are synthesized and evolve over millions of years to form the first bacteria.

Re:neat

[kurzweilfreak]

Easy: chemistry. Chemical properties determine what base pairs bond to others, and in the right environments, certain base pairs are more likely to bond than others. Atoms/molecules bond all the time into different chemicals, but some combinations have the special property that they encourage the creation of copies of themselves provides the right materials are available. Chemistry.

Re:neat

[Anonymous Coward]

Very neat IMHO. I find it particularly interesting that this works for DNA. One of the main arguments for RNA being more primordial than DNA is that RNA can function autocatalytically, while DNA mostly just sits there. Here we see that tiny bits of DNA can self-assemble into a liquid crystal ordering; under the right conditions, DNA molecules can actually do something, not just waiting passively for some RNA to come along and catalyze a reaction. While these results don't show DNA replicating itself, it does help shed some light on how an early autocatalytic set could form.

Re:from ooze we came?

[Gotung]

Unfortunately with its tendency to test out every possible variation, evolution also leads to nutbags like you. Go join a suicide cult and help evolution run its course.

Re:from ooze we came?

[ScentCone]

do not be dismayed, it is the way it was meant to be

I'm curious. Do you ever, you know, actually read your own posts? Unpunctuated, case-mangled, non-sequitor-ish loony ramblings have the very subtle effect of, you know, making you look like a simpering, witless, theo-clown. Just sayin'. Other than that, have a great weekend!

Re:from ooze we came?

[DrSkwid]

tbh I prefer bhuddabot

Article Summary...

[PatrickHagerty]

Humans are Borg!

Atoms

[Anonymous Coward]

form molecules... news at 11!

not intelligent enough...

[CrazedWalrus]

...Or don't have the proper perspective. For example, consider one of those huge walk-through mazes. Those things are dog-simple when seen from above, but when you're inside of it, it can take an hour to get out. You do eventually get out, but it takes a lot longer to solve that way than the seconds it would take when seen from a better point of view.

I'm personally of the opinion that nothing science concludes will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of (a) God(s), so I'm not sure why this discussion keeps coming up. Yeah, science never "proves", only "shows to be likely", whatever. The point is that you either believe in God or you don't. There's no scientifically veritable "correct" answer that can ever be had until some day in the future when it's too late to do anything about it anyway. You're either worm food or in your final eternal resting place... wherever that may be.

Honestly, the religion bashing is completely pointless and is getting really, really old hat.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[brainnolo]

Religion bashing may be pointless but, like governments, the main religious organizations are very influent, powerful and rich (and unlike governments they do not offer any tangible service). I'm all for free thinking but for example the Roman Church has been involved in many scandals and crimes against humanity (crusades comes to mind obviously) and they are never punished for their actions. If my opinion was worth something religious organization wouldn't be allowed or would be controlled as tightly (or even more) as corporations. Corporations which do not even need to prove the existence, let alone the quality of what they sell (the hope of life after death).

Re:not intelligent enough...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I'm personally of the opinion that nothing science concludes will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of (a) God(s), so I'm not sure why this discussion keeps coming up.

It keeps coming up because religious ideologues keep insisting that science is wrong because it contradicts their beliefs. And they want to base public policy and education on those beliefs. The beliefs themselves are a personal matter, of course, and they've got every right to believe that Rapture is imminent or that life was created in its current form 6000 years ago; the conflict occurs when they try to base things like environmental management or what's taught in high-school science classes on it.

Honestly, the religion bashing is completely pointless and is getting really, really old hat.

The science bashing isn't pointless at all -- it's a means of gaining political power -- but it's definitely old hat, which doesn't keep fanatics from doing it. Scientists who bash religion, e.g. Dawkins, do so out of disgust with religion's continual insistence on trying to replace knowledge with ignorance, and the consequences thereof.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[lbbros]

Now that you mention the Crusades, I advise you to read up some history books before saying "it was all the Church's fault" or "it was a war of religion".

Re:not intelligent enough...

[lbbros]

However, religion bashing has come to a point where even admitting of being religious is a cause of ridicule or arrogance. Don't forget that tolerance works both ways - from "less open" to "more open" and from "more open" to "less open". I've only seen the former, which in turn causes a lot of people to behave rather arrogantly.

Religion by itself is not a curse, nor a tainting mark. I do science and I am religious. Is there something wrong in that?

Re:not intelligent enough...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

However, religion bashing has come to a point where even admitting of being religious is a cause of ridicule or arrogance.

[shrug] I haven't seen that; I have seen a lot of religious believers being hypersensitive and interpreting fanatic-bashing as religion-bashing generally. E.g., when someone attempts to jump in on a discussion of the origins of DNA in the early terrestrial environment with, "That can't be true because Genesis says ..." then mockery is the only reasonable response. That's not religion-bashing, that's fanatic-bashing. If you are willing to accomodate your religious beliefs to scientific observations, as many religious scientists have done, then hardly anyone is going to attack you for it. (And those who do can be ignored; there are cranks and professional malcontents on both sides of every argument.)

I do science and I am religious. Is there something wrong in that?

Of course not. Motivation is irrelevant when science is done right. You can study a problem because you have a personal interest in solving it, because you want to unravel the mysteries of God's creation, because someone is paying you a whole lot of money to do so, or just out of simple curiosity -- all of these motivations can produce good science, and will no doubt continue to do so. But it's important to acknowledge that some motivations are more likely to lead to bias than others; and it is absurd to deny that religion has introduced considerable bias into the study of the origins of life.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[Eli Gottlieb]

[shrug] I haven't seen that; Welcome to the internet. Population: every smug, religion-hating atheist on the planet.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Welcome to the internet. Population: every smug, religion-hating atheist on the planet.

And every hypersensitive religionist who will find every excuse to make personal attacks based on out-of-context snippets of /. posts, apparently.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

However, religion bashing has come to a point where even admitting of being religious is a cause of ridicule or arrogance. Gee I wonder why? Oh that's right, it's because most often "your religion" has some pretty nasty things to say about the rest of us. Such as suffering in eternal agony unless we reciprocate the love of your god or prophet. When was the last anti-Buddhist rant you've heard or read? Ever? Stop trying to pass off being spiritual as having an organized set of beliefs that you must adhere to and coerce others to adhere to as well. I consider myself a very spiritual person but I'm still an atheist and an agnostic. It's not bashing of beliefs, customs or traditions, it's the rational rejection of questionable claims. God has never claimed to exist. It's not like God is the shining sun, I can feel the heat and I can see the light but I'm just some asshole rejecting it. I'm not walking around tripping over God and then willfully disbelieving out of spite or arrogance. The existence of God is non-obvious, therefore the burden of proof remains squarely on those making the claims, no matter what kind of flawed thought-process you follow. As for my idea of "God" it's more of a nomological necessity similar to the fundamental force of gravity rather than a personal deity with two eyes, ears, arms, legs and testicles. Seriously, that idea of a god that your parents taught you out of an uncorroborated book written by Stone Age peasants is laughable and you really do only deserve ridicule and shame, if and only if you've been presented with all this evidence and still hold true that Jesus Christ is the only way God could come up with to save us from his dysfunctional Universe.

And if you don't like it, fuck you.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[ceoyoyo]

Science can't prove or disprove there's a god or gods, but it can turn up an awful lot of evidence that a particular idea of what a god is like is unlikely to be correct.

Scientists creating life from inanimate matter in the lab has absolutely nothing to say about whether god exists, but it pretty much blows out of the water the idea that creating life is the exclusive province of the divine.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[Pax681]

erm... pope boniface orderd the first crusade... against ther muslims.... to get jerusalem and the "holy land" into charistian hands....... there fore the church of rome ordered the crusades ad backed ALL of the crusades. to say this wasn't a war of religion..which it BLATANTLY was , AND to then say read books on it is quite frankly amazing. you see when the poster reads up on it he will see that it was a war of religion. i give talk on a semi regular basis about the Templars, their history, the crusades and such and have been on UK radio talking abot them on more than one occassion. i am by no means the leading world expert but i would say i am competant in my knowledge and recgnised as such by groups, organisations and radio(BBC Scotland being one of them) you can try to wish away the absolute fact that there have been more torture, deaths ,murders,attempted genocides and general inhumanity(look to the cathars for a start) in the name of religion to utterly quash your statement. and Christianty(both roman and non roman) does have to shoulder it's burden there(yes jesus pun intended)

Re:not intelligent enough...

[EonBlueApocalypse]

This seems off topic but it's still a subject we have to come to terms with as we see reality behaving in a vastly different way then we once thought it had. I think the problem with religion is not god, but that most religions think they have the definitive answers to why we are here and discredit new information that does not conform to a certain belief system. It's not the idea of god but the thought of behaving, thinking, acting, or ignoring facts in certain ways to appease what largely is an idea. Just because a lot of people feel God behaves one way and another lot of people feel God behaves in another doesn't mean any of them are right. Not that, that proves them wrong either but as with religions of the past or even religions outside our current belief how often do we give these ideas a chance? Perhaps theres even the possibility that like what we once knew of the universe, that humanities image of god may also be way off track. In my case it's not common nor uncommon to be mistaken as an atheist because I do not accept any religion as absolute truth. My mostly Christian family feels iv abandon God because iv abandon religion as an absolute, while I on the other hand feel I've found to be a more grand and more acceptable idea of what "God" is then I have seen anywhere else. While that doesn't make me correct in anyway, it still seems miles away from the traditional view the of what you are for not accepting a religions beliefs. Life is what you make it, and you can see that threw all the different cultures and religions in the world, it seems a lot of the religion bashing is from frustration and not realizing that what these people believe and grew up in is reality for them not just ignorance.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[lbbros]

Bonifacius? Are you sure? It was a proclamation by Pope Urbanus (of which there are multiple transcribed versions, so there is uncertainty on what had been actually said) and it was just a "call to arms", but he himself did not expect the reaction.

Talking about a war of religion is an understatement of the Crusades (but nice for people trying to push ideologies), a mixture of many different factors, and which represent part of the medieval mentality (a strange, complex one, but not certainly the one of a "Dark Age"). Let's not even bring the Templars in this discussion, as way too many hiistorically inaccurate facts have been said about them.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[Creepy Crawler]

---Religion by itself is not a curse, nor a tainting mark. I do science and I am religious. Is there something wrong in that?

Absolutely not.

Well.. I have grown away from religion (Catholicism) because of linguists, historians, and anthropologists... scientists.

When I hear the reports of an archaeology dig about how the Bible wasn't quite true, I lose some faith.
When I see the reports and academic writings indicating how a different peoples history doesn't coincide with the Bible, I lose faith.
When I witness the manuscripts and books which Dark Ages priests added their own stories to the Gospels, I lose even more faith.

What do you believe when at least 25% of your faith is proved false by science and alternate histories and anthropological studies?

Re:not intelligent enough...

[Kjella]

There are a lot of claims in religion that are beyond what we can ever prove by science, and those will never be answered. However, most religious texts make claims about earth, life and our origins that are testable. Quite many of these turn out to be wrong, as in "the earth is flat" wrong in every sense but the philosophical discussion on whether knowledge can be gained through observation or exists at all. Under any other circumstance you'd call those undisputable facts, as solid as the chair I'm sitting on.

Clearly God would know the true answer to these questions, so how can there be false answers in a book of truth, or at least that appear to us as false (solves 99% of the "proof" issues)? There are many possible answers to this - perhaps God doesn't want us to know, perhaps it's a test of faith, perhaps they are the truth but hidden from us, perhaps they are simplifications for those who lived thousands of years ago, perhaps the writing down was inaccurate and so on. If the religious would simply accept one of them, there'd be no conflict between religion and science.

Instead some people - quite many in fact - insist that there are no false answers. That these answers, which are directly contradicted by observation, are none the less true. That these answers should be taught as truth, and that any other answer shall be suppressed. Even if it's what any sane, unbiased person with no preconceptions would conclude that the answer is when presented with the evidence. Do not check, do not reason, just take it at face value because there's no other. So the problem isn't to use science to prove or disprove God - it's that people use God to disprove science.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[moz25]

Don't forget that tolerance works both ways - from "less open" to "more open" and from "more open" to "less open".

I have no issue whatsoever with people who keep their religion to themselves or who behave in ways that I would expect, i.e. modest, kind and forgiving. I know people who are like that and I have no troubles with them.

Instead, we are confronted almost daily with "proud Christians" who are so intensely narrowminded that they cannot even comprehend that we do not secretly believe in God and by extension fear God. I never understand the logic behind yelling "you'll go to Hell for [insert triviality]!!" to someone who doesn't believe in a Hell.

Now you'll probably claim those people aren't "real Christians", but realize they are vocal and cannot be ignored. As you know, they are very active politically. Heck, if you're active in politics, your best bet is to claim you're religious even if you're not. Too many people associate it with being "good".

Let's not get into the specifics of your particular religion, because IMO if you take a step back, it is rather ridiculous. So many things are taken out of context, interpreted to fit biases or simply translated incorrectly. For example, "Jesus walks ON water" is written same as "Jesus wants NEXT TO water" in the original language.

Then the whole anti-homo stuff... jeez. Only 0.02% of the whole book can be interpreted to be about gays somehow and even that can be explained away through context and interpretation (e.g. good luck following all the rules in Leviticus). Yet Christianity appears to be all about sexuality and homosexuality in particular. That's what they're really vocal about and even base voting decisions on.

Then there's the Jesus guy... an illiterate carpenter who care about poor sick people. While I don't believe he had any powers, I can run a thought experiment of "what would Jesus do". Well, it's *really* hard for me to imagine that such a figure would endorse any of the smug bigoted consumption-oriented Christians of today.

Can you at least see how modern implementation of religion doesn't even inherently bash logic, but even conflict with its own roots?

I really wish we as a humanity could put all this rubbish behind us. On the other hand, humanity being what it is, we could most likely expect something even worse (e.g. Scientology)...

Re:not intelligent enough...

[lbbros]

In that case, you realize that the scriptures, like everything else, are product of their times. Even if Catholicism believes they're "inspired", a good theologist will tell you that even so, they must be interpreted with regards of the historical and social context of the time. I've seen a Jesuit theologist talk about that in the context of Noah's Ark, and he made perfectly valid arguments without being "blasphemous".

Unlike other variants of Christians, Catholicism does not really promote a literal interpretation of the Bible. Surely you'll find people who tell you otherwise, but it is not the case "officially".

Re:not intelligent enough...

[lbbros]

I hope this doesn't sound like an ad hominem, but your post incarnates the attitude I was writing about in my other message. Calling it "rubbish" does not make you any better of the religion you despise, even though you may have all the logic behind you.
Pride in a religion is nothing wrong unless you start killing people in its name. And yet, it would be the person's fault, or fault of the people who indoctrinate... but not of religion itself.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists who bash religion, e.g. Dawkins, do so out of disgust with religion's continual insistence on trying to replace knowledge with ignorance, and the consequences thereof.

And certainly not because he's a whiny little man who wasn't praised enough as a child.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

really, really old hat

Welcome to SlashDot, new user! I hope you enjoy your stay. Your standard meme pack is enclosed with this letter; please note when using that the "Soviet Russia" meme will attempt to post you, but this is perfectly normal and nothing to be alarmed about.

Signed,
Your friendly neighbourhood insect overlords.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

w00t bitchfight

Re:not intelligent enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dawkins doesn't bash religion, he criticises it. Have you read "The God Delusion"? If no, I recommend it; it's not the vicious attack that some religious (!) people would like it to be.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[Peter La Casse]

It keeps coming up because religious ideologues keep insisting that science is wrong because it contradicts their beliefs.

I was with you until you said "wrong". Too often I see religious ideologues insisting that science is the only rational basis for a worldview, because other worldviews contradict their beliefs. Religious zealots, regardless of flavor, tend to be distressingly similar when arguing their points of view.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[arminw]

........and they are never punished for their actions.......

You hypocrite! Have you ever been punished for your bad actions? How many lies you have told so far in your life, or stuff you have "appropriated" that wasn't yours? How about the other eight commandments? Notice they are called commandments not optional choices. How many times have you broken traffic laws and not been punished. Ever wonder what kind of a world it would be if EVERYBODY got punished instantly, EVERY time we broke some law? Because we ALL are law breakers, we all die eventually, without exception.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus walking next to water wouldn't be much of a miracle, would it? Probably safe to say that on water is what was meant. As for the homosexuality part, doesn't mean anyone has to be a jerk or anything, but the Bible is pretty clear that it's a sin.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[moz25]

I agree the word "rubbish" was ill-chosen, but I do not despise religion itself. There are lots of belief systems that a majority of people consider to be false, yet can still appreciate. It's not like I'm going to despise kids for believing in Santa.

The difference is that with religion, it's actual adults with power and money pushing flawed logic with energy and fanaticism. It is difficult to remain modest while those who assault logic on every level shout the loudest.

It complicates matters that those who are so vocal also act in ways that appear completely in conflict with the very tenets of the religion they advocate. I'm all for the concept of "love your enemies" and to be forgiving. I wish I'd actually see that attitude more often.

If you're religious and it helps you become a better person, good for you. However, if you're going to tell me that I'll go to Hell for not believing in your deity (which is no more real to me than Santa is to you), then do not expect any respect for your intellect.

As I understand from quotes that people throw around, a relevant part of the indoctrination process deals with preparing followers to ward off critisms. Either their own or from skeptics. Why listen to me when I'm blind and Hell-bound anyway? Logic schmogic.

Pride in a religion is nothing wrong unless you start killing people in its name.

It depends completely on the form of pride. Does that pride entice you to hate others or act nasty towards them? I don't see why in the transition from "not-wrong" to "wrong", you'd put the cut-off point at killing people. If I hit you in the face, I wouldn't have killed you, but it'd still be wrong.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[moz25]

Looking at the context, homosexuality is as much a sin as eating shellfish or wearing clothes of certain modern fabrics. If it's as much a sin as something that's obviously not a sin, then it's obvious to understand that it's really not something to get worked up about.

Try to at least read the thing without cultural bias...

Re:not intelligent enough...

[arminw]

.......I do science and I am religious. Is there something wrong in that?....

Nothing at all. They ask and try to answer different questions that have puzzled the minds of man since the dawn of history.

Science attempts to answer "how" questions. Religion is tries to answer "why" questions. Neither has cornered the market answering "when" things happened or when they might happen.

All information comes to us either by first hand experience or by communication from some witness. Nobody can PROVE if a witness is telling the truth or not. All we can do is to either BELIEVE the witness or not. Even your own senses can deceive you.

When a scientist does an experiment or observation, it only applies to the time he does it. We can assume (believe) it should logically apply also to the past or the future, but there is no way to know that for sure. If scientists and religious folks both talk about the WHEN of things, we have to believe one or the other, until someone invents time travel. No human scientist has gone back and observed the formation of life, so we have to believe their assertions about it. Even if someone did travel to the dawn of time and then came back, we'd still have to take their word for it or not.

We also, equally, may choose to BELIEVE, or not, the religious claim of revelation from God to a human called Moses about when life began. Nobody can go back to verify that Moses heard correctly.

Present evolutionary dogma depends on time, unfathomable quantities of time. Time essentially occupies the place of God. Given enough time, anything is possible. Time is omnipotent, in that it can do anything that God can do. Time can turn not only a frog, but even a rock into a prince.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[ardle]

Here's a really good story from European history that could be characterised as a war of religion :-)

Re:not intelligent enough...

[arminw]

.....When I hear the reports of an archaeology dig about how the Bible wasn't quite true.........

Can you give an example of that and not just somebody's opinion or interpretation of the data?

(.....What do you believe when at least 25% of your faith is proved false by science and alternate histories and anthropological studies?.....)

Are you taking about actual scientific facts and data, the raw data that is, or someone's interpretation of that data? Both scientists and religionists tend to interpret data through their world view and pre-suppositions.

Example: In 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered the "red-shift". That light from distant objects is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. That was and still is a measured fact. However then he INTERPRETED that to mean that these objects are in rapid motion due to the well known doppler effect. He and most scientists never considered that the cause of this observation may be something entirely different. Today, still, the entire science establishment of astronomy and cosmology takes this interpretation as established fact.

The other sciences you mentioned are no different. They observe data and then interpret that data. These interpretations, just like any propaganda repeated often enough,long enough, and loud enough, are eventually believed as truth.

So you must choose whether to believe these interpretations of the data or believe the claim of the writers of the Bible, that they were eyewitnesses of the events and people they wrote about.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[morcego]

I do science and I am religious. Is there something wrong in that?

I studied for many years on a catholic school. We had our religion classes. We had our masses. And we would have hour biology classes. The teacher, btw, was a priest. He would even say "science is the tool god gave us to understand his creation". I find that a very enlightened way to look at things.

A scientist who is also religious is something very natural for me.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Because we ALL are law breakers, we all die eventually, without exception."

We do all die eventually.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[E 99]

It keeps coming up because religious ideologues keep insisting that science is wrong because it contradicts their beliefs.

Wrong. Find me one of these threads that is started by a religious ideologue. And science is a methodology. It cannot be right or wrong. Scientists, on the other hand, can be many things, including, but not limited to, right, wrong, ideological, and irrational.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[arminw]

......That these answers, which are directly contradicted by observation, are none the less true.......

The question whether the answers contradict the observations themselves or someone's interpretations of the observations. When scientists "measure" the age of rocks, for example, they use radioactive decay as their clock. The assume (believe) that this clock is both accurate and CONSTANT over the time period in question. This assumption is never questioned and on the surface seems to make sense. However, there is no way to PROVE that this radioactivity clock, upon which the immense ages theorized, are based, is in fact invariant over the large spans of time. So we can either believe our logic or we can believe the writers of the Bible who claim that God Himself told them a little, not nearly as much as we'd like to know about how things began. Either way, science or religion, it comes down to belief.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[E 99]

I never understand the logic behind yelling "you'll go to Hell for [insert triviality]!!" to someone who doesn't believe in a Hell.

Neither do I. But neither do I understand the Dawkinesque logic behind yelling "The belief of God is delusional. You believe it because it makes you feel good. I am a 'bright'." Personally, I see a whole lot more of the latter than the former.

So many things are taken out of context, interpreted to fit biases or simply translated incorrectly. For example, "Jesus walks ON water" is written same as "Jesus wants NEXT TO water" in the original language.

Yes, "epi" in Greek could mean "next to" as well as "on." But then you would have to interpret the book of Matthew to say that while the ship of disciples was in the middle of the sea, being battered by waves, Jesus walked to the ship by walking NEXT TO the sea; and when they saw him walking NEXT TO the sea, they were terrified; but when he said that it was him, Peter asked him to make him also able to walk NEXT TO the water; but when Peter was also walking NEXT to the water, he started to fear because of the wind, and he began to sink, but Jesus saved him. (Apparently, there was quicksand NEXT TO the sea.)

You obviously didn't pick up this particular criticism by actually reading the book in Greek. If you blindly believe what ideologues tell you, you will be manipulated. That goes for you just as well as religious people.

Then there's the Jesus guy... an illiterate carpenter who care about poor sick people.

He was not illiterate. Besides many places describing him as having a comprehensive knowledge of scripture, the Book of Luke specifically describes him reading from the scroll of the prophet Isaiah in the synagogue.

Can you at least see how modern implementation of religion doesn't even inherently bash logic, but even conflict with its own roots?

There is no one "modern implementation" of Christianity. There are as many implementations as there are Christians. All implementations conflict, to one degree or another, with its root; as its root is perfect and its implementations are imperfect. As for religion inherently bashing logic, it doesn't; however it is inherently devoid of the fallacy that logic is the one and only source of truth.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[securityfolk]

The funny part being that Genesis is actually derived from older, more complete Sumerian stories...

Re:not intelligent enough...

[Eli Gottlieb]

Wait, I don't get the joke. Where's the personal attack or the oversensitive religious guy?

Re:not intelligent enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course you can prove the EXISTENCE of God, he merely has to come down and show himself. (likelihood of that: lim-> 1/inf)

What you can't prove is that God does NOT exist. You can't use any of the laws of this universe to disprove it, because who's to say the laws of this universe envelope apply to a "God" outside it. Maybe this God "exists" in a place where causality doesn't hold, and thus avoids the issue of how he was created.

Or maybe God exists in a place of infinite time. Therefore if the probability that he exists is even slightly non-zero, then after infinite time he must therefore come to exist.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[moz25]

Well, we know the area in the brain that deals with religious experiences. It's a mechanism that is increasingly understood. While I believe the word "delusion" is a bit strong, it's also accurate in my opinion.

There is no one "modern implementation" of Christianity.

No, but there is modern culture and a way for religion to be implemented within that culture. Christianity is certainly "compatible" with being consumption-oriented. I don't believe it was so at its core. Maybe you have a perspective on that.

All implementations conflict, to one degree or another, with its root; as its root is perfect and its implementations are imperfect.

That's a rather escapist argument: it's not hard to see that people take whatever they *feel* makes sense and put a divine label on it. We might as well say Communism is perfect at its core in spite of being a failure in reality.

As for religion inherently bashing logic, it doesn't; however it is inherently devoid of the fallacy that logic is the one and only source of truth.

It's ironic how in the same line you're bashing logic in the same line where you say religion isn't. Besides, please explain how logic can be used as a source for information? As far as I know, it's just a number of rules arguments must play by in order not to be invalid. When they are invalid, we say "hey, that's a fallacy". So, using the word "fallacy" where you advocate against logic is pretty odd in that light.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got a funny idea that might end religion vs. science:

Take an elementary school science book, replace all the facts with political analogies written in legalese, translate it into coptic then back to english, and call it a bible 2.0

It could be done the other way too. Rewrite the bible as a science book... but that's nothing new.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[sigzero]

It is /. and that is why it happens over and over and over and over.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[BetaJim]

This assumption is never questioned and on the surface seems to make sense. However, there is no way to PROVE that this radioactivity clock, upon which the immense ages theorized, are based, is in fact invariant over the large spans of time.

That is not true. Every time radio-isotope dating is done, it matches the constant constant decay rate assumption. What we don't have is any evidence that would cause this assumption to be questioned. Do you have any?

One very good piece of evidence that the decay rates are constant is observations of supernova 1987A. This supernova occurred at a distance of ~160,000 light-years. Gamma rays from certain cobalt isotopes were observed to decline as predicted by the half-life that these isotopes are observed to have here on Earth. This is good evidence that as far back as 160,000 years ago the decay rates for these isotopes have not changed.

There is probably other evidence, but I'm familiar supernova 1987A fairly well. There is simply no reason to think that radioactive decay occured slower or faster in the past.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[RockDoctor]

Welcome to the internet. Population: every smug, religion-hating atheist on the planet.

I know at least three religion-hating atheists who're not on the Internet. Which implies that you're a pathetic god-squaddie who doesn't realise that you're even more outnumbered and wrong than you already think you are.

Perhaps I should try to persuade them to get onto the internet, but they have so much fun taking the piss out of god-squaddies as they go in and out of the few remaining churches in town.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[arminw]

.....This supernova occurred at a distance of ~160,000 light-years......

Whenever distance and time are equated, there again is an assumption (belief) made. It is assumed that whatever is moving, light in this case, travels at a constant rate. So all that was really done was to shift assumptions. There is NO known law of physics that mandates that the speed of light be constant. We KNOW, by experiment, that the speed of light is greatly affected by the medium it traverses. Space itself is not an empty nothing, but has electromagnetic properties. Light, being electromagnetic, therefore is affected. As the Universe expanded, the very nature of space changed dramatically. There is evidence that the speed of light must have been 300 million times faster than today, shortly after the "big bang".

Any clock that uses atomic motion must be corrected for the expansion factor of the universe, because the equations that govern electromagnetic interactions ALL contain a "constant" related to the speed of light. The same is true for the equations that govern radioactivity which is also governed by the electromagnetic interaction, often labelled the "weak interaction".

The gravity equations do no contain such a constant and are therefore not subject to this correction. Planetary motions are governed by gravity and are therefore nor affected by the expansion of the universe.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[BetaJim]

Your skepticism is completely unwarranted; do you think that your brain is in a vat? The sensation of your body is just an assumption. Ooohh...

There is NO known law of physics that mandates that the speed of light be constant.

Yes there is: General Relativity

There is evidence that the speed of light must have been 300 million times faster than today, shortly after the "big bang".

There is no such evidence.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[scotch]

There is a certain fallacy that has become fashionable in the last decade. I don't know if this fallacy has a name, but the basic ideas is that "if there are two sides to an issue, each side has equal merit". Of course, not all ideas have equal merit, and the fact that you can find some nut to argue that the earth is flat does not justify "equal time" or equal consideration for the idea in education, the media, science books, or a honest debate on slashdot.

The ideas you question, the constancy of radioactive decay (really the question of the constancy of certain fundamental constants), etc, are questioned and tested by scientists. Further, the details of radioactive decay measurement, by which I mean the initial conditions and environmental conditions of a sample, are definitely not just assumed without question. There are known conditions which invalidate or skew the results. Scientists find these conditions and document them, not religionists, by the way. Science is a human endeavor, and mistakes are made. And if mistakes are made, we learn by it and dating gets more accurate. As it gets more accurate, the story of the history of life gets more interesting and also further from the literal stories presented in various religious texts.

Now, the science of dating is quite interesting. There are many methods available, and the brains and sweat that have gone into developing the science is really a testament to the intellect of our species. These many methods are used as cross checks, validation, verification, and extending the range for which we can reliably date objects. There is uncertainty in the science to be sure, but if you consider the entire field, all the methods, the extensive measurements, the excellent validation in many areas, and the mathematical and physical models developed by other great minds (e.g. physics) which serve to bolster our confidence in the methods, the only honest reaction is awe and amazement.

Opposed to this (at least to some) we have a book. Well, really just a very short chapter in that book.

Now, given all this, we have some armchair philosopher such as yourself who comes along and proposes that since there is some doubt in the science of dating, then clearly the idea that the book is right and the science deserves equal consideration.

One can only assume that you are a moron.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[Eivind Eklund]

Pride in a religion is nothing wrong unless you start killing people in its name. I mostly agree with your formulation, though I'll extend it a little bit (and I think you'll agree with it): Pride in a religion is OK as long as you don't hurt people due to it.

This do, though, increase the scope quite a bit, as it means people can't use religion as a basis for a kind of action that end up hurting people, even when the damage is non-intentional. With that constraint, I feel religion as OK, and a solace and inspiration for people (even though I am an atheist myself.)

Eivind.

How Did the DNA Strands Form?

[MOBE2001]

Supposing that life started with random DNA strands that somehow self-organized, how did the DNA strands form? Randomly, all by themselves? How likely is that? Anyone knows?

Re:How Did the DNA Strands Form?

[fahrbot-bot]

How did the DNA strands form? Randomly, all by themselves? How likely is that? Anyone knows?

I'm sure the likelihood is a factor of time. While I could use the 1000 monkeys analogy, I prefer Steven Wright: "Anywhere is walking distance if you have the time."

Re:How Did the DNA Strands Form?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is known that prebiotic earth contained formamide as well as various minerals from comets or other rock formations. Heating of formamide in the prescence of various minerals (which act as catalysts) can produce nucleotide bases including purine and adenine. RNA (which it is generally considered to have been the first self-assembling system) consists of the nucleotide bases attached to a phosphate backbone. How they attached to the backbone is being studied.

Re:How Did the DNA Strands Form?

[harrv]

In "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, he makes the point that there are approximately a billion billion planets in the universe within the so-called "goldilocks zone", that is, capable of sustaining life because they probably have liquid water. So, even if the likelihood of DNA or RNA randomly forming was a billion-to-one, that would still mean that it has happened on a billion planets.

Re:How Did the DNA Strands Form?

[MOBE2001]

So, even if the likelihood of DNA or RNA randomly forming was a billion-to-one, that would still mean that it has happened on a billion planets.

Sor far, nobody has ventured a probability figure based on observation. I take it that nobody knows since the random formation of DNA/RNA strands has never been observed. However, it should be possible for a bio-chemist to figure out the likelihood of the right molecules getting together in some primordial soup. What if the probability is zero? Has anybody here thought of this possibility? I guess not.

Re:How Did the DNA Strands Form?

[SagSaw]

What if the probability is zero?

Since DNA and RNA did form, the probability is greater than zero. If the probability is calculated to be zero, it implies that one or more of the assumptions that went into the calculations was incorrect and it's time for science to fill in a few more gaps and then re-compute. That's the power of science: You can refine your models and re-check for as many times as are necessary to produce useful results. Perhaps the incorrect assumption _is_ that DNA/RNA formed randomly and we need to investigate how DNA/RNA arrived on our planet.

Now I, personally, don't know how knowledge of the origin of DNA/RNA will benifit humanity. I do know we'll never find out if we take the easy way out and invoke an unobservable supernatural power.

Re:How Did the DNA Strands Form?

[arminw]

....if you have the time.......

Indeed, time is the magic that turns rocks, never mind frogs, into princes. No maiden kisses required, just enough time. Boy, what a fairy tale masquerading as science!

Re:How Did the DNA Strands Form?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if you RTFA, it's a pretty good explanation of how long strands of DNA can form from very tiny segments. Joan Oro's work in the early 60's demonstrated prebiotic synthesis of nucleobases (at least for one of them: adenine from hydrogen cyanide, I'm not sure if work has been done on the other bases).

So the gap we need to explain isn't randomly generating a full-blown DNA strand, its getting from single nucleotides to at least 6 base pairs. Odds for this don't seem so bad to me, especially since (as others have pointed out) we have incredibly long time spans to work with.

Re:How Did the DNA Strands Form?

[crazyeddie740]

On the Wikipedia article on 'RNA world hypothesis,' it says Joan Oro demonstrated that (at least some) nucleotides could be synthesized abiotically. It does say in the next section that process that Oro used to synthesize nucleotides is incompatible with the synthesis of sugars, but that's not referenced, so who knows if that's right or not. (I certainly don't.)

If there was some prebiotic mechanism for pumping out sugars and nucleotides, then the chances of 6-base strands forming go up a lot. Oro demonstrated one way, there might be others. Since I'm not a chemist, I have no idea of the chances of these strands forming spontaneously, given a sufficiently rich soup of sugars and nucleotides, but it doesn't sound too improbable.

At this point, this newly discovered liquid crystal effect comes into play. According to the Wikipedia article, one of the problems with the RNA world hypothesis is that RNA would get terminated if a nucleotide of the wrong chilarity joined. Nucleotides and other amino-acids come in right-hand and left-hand forms. A growing RNA strand needs to be made out of nucleotides of the same handedness, or chilarity. Since AFIACT, there's a 50/50 shot of what chilarity an abiotically produced nucleotide would be, there would be a very good chance that an abiotic RNA strand would get terminated by a nucleotide of the wrong chilarity early in the game. This liquid crystal effect would tend to select for longer RNA strands, which would help to counteract the chilarity termination problem. This is assuming that this liquid crystal effect works on RNA as well as DNA, but it looks like it should work on any nucleic acid.

With long strands of RNA, the chances of one of those strands doing something useful (RNA can work as a protein) go up. If you can get a strain of RNA that self-replicates, then you have a very simple form of life and evolution comes into play.

This liquid crystal effect gives what might be called an island of stability. Finding out ways that amino-acids, nucleotides, sugars, and other simple biochemical building blocks could have been synthesized abiotically provide other islands of stability. With each island of stability we discover, life arising from non-living chemicals becomes less improbable. It's the difference between having to dial every possible combination into a combination lock and being able to listen for a 'click' when each tumbler hits the right digit.

Re:How Did the DNA Strands Form?

[crazyeddie740]

1) DNA and RNA exist today.
2) They can decompose into simpler chemicals.
3) Each of the decomposition reactions are reversible.

Therefore the probability of simpler chemicals coming together and forming nucleic acids is not zero.

Of course, that *is* like saying that since your room is clean, it can become messy, and that each of the actions that caused it to become messy are reversible, therefore your room could spontaneously clean itself... But see my post below about how those odds can be cut down.

Re:How Did the DNA Strands Form?

[MOBE2001]

Hey guys. The original question was not whether or not DNA/RNA can form but what is the probability that it can form randomly by itself from a stew of available chemicals? Has this ever been observed? If not, how does one ascribe the probability of it happening randomly by itself?

Re:How Did the DNA Strands Form?

[Floritard]

Your room does not become messy by itself either. Both actions require an actor.

Re:astropost

[Anonymous Coward]

Me too!

C- Trolling effort

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a total loss, but could use some real improvement. For instance the classic creationist troll is spewed forth in one massive text dump of a paragraph, never in these short sentences and sentence fragments with breaks in between. Real quality creationist trolls will include multiple links to conspiracy sites, not just one random link. Also, you SEEM unfamiliar with THE caps lock and shift KEYS. Any creationist troll worth their salt will liberally sprinkle their post with lots of random capitalization. The yOURs are problematic in that it's too consistent; a real creationist troll wouldn't miss the y more than once. However you did omit capitalization at the beginning of each sentence so that saves you from getting a lower grade. Your misuse of punctuation is wrong because you want too little punctuation, not too much, although at least what is there is usually incorrect. Kudos on the general incoherency, though.

Media is nice, just not all that important

[0x1b]

This discovery is interesting if one sees genesis, as well as life, from the perspective of a process. The implications of the underlying affinity for replication are left for theologists to elaborate.

please see:
A. Graham Cairns-Smith of Glasgow
Genetic takeover and the mineral origins of life
Cambridge University Press 1982
LoC cat # 81-17070
ISBN 0 521 23312 7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Cairns-Smith

Media is nice, just not all that important - unless you are it.
Was it you that had the good day, or was it what you did that had the day?

Re:Media is nice, just not all that important

[SpeedyDX]

Sorry, I'm a little (read: a lot) hungover, so I don't know what the rest of your post says. But there's one thing I take issue with:

Media is nice, just not all that important Do you really think so? Maybe you should ask those dictators who use government-controlled media streams to send out their propoganda if they think media is important. Maybe you should look up the relationship between the prevalency of free press in a country and its government's human rights violations. Media, and to a greater extent free press, is INTEGRAL for any democratic society.

Oh, and I suppose you don't consider that book you just cited as a medium? Books are as much of a part of media as newspapers, TV, radio, and the internet. In fact, there are many times that books, as media, changed the face of the world. Martin Luther's writings led to the Reformation that created many of the Protestant sects of Christianity.

Yeah, I'm off-topic, but I'm willing to take a bit of a karma beating to set this guy straight.

Re:from ooze we came?

[GotenXiao]

Your sarcasm detector is broken. That, or you've never read the wonderful works of Douglas Adams.

God of the Gaps

[Liquidrage]

It's shrinking. One day they'll be no place to hide.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Doubtful, if the universe never existed at one point, therefore an the potential for it's existence must have always existed or we wouldn't exist, so something exists. Whether that something is a god, or something else know one can know.

You can't draw an existent from an absolute-never-existance. Science must submit to logic in the end, else science falls apart since:

Definition Logic:
1. A method of human thought that involves thinking in a linear, step-by-step manner about how a problem can be solved. Logic is ***the basis*** of many principles *including the scientific method.*

Re:God of the Gaps

[Eli Gottlieb]

Who's they?

Re:God of the Gaps

[DigiShaman]

Ever study a godless society or those in power that don't believe in God (or "higher power" more specifically)? You get a nasty form of hubris and arrogance hell bent on power and selfishness.

On the flip side of the coin, I wouldn't want to live in the days of the crusades or modern radical Islam either. But don't wish for a Godless society. It's just as bad.

Re:God of the Gaps

[arminw]

....that involves thinking in a linear, step-by-step manner about how a problem can be solved........

The problem with establishing a series of steps is that the first step has to be put somewhere. Nobody KNOWS where that first step needs to go. We can believe where it might have been, but once you start to believe, who is to say one belief is more true than any other?

The Bible tells us the first step began with God because God is the eternally self existent One. Modern science cannot really place the first step. Logic tells us the Universe either created itself, which is absurd, or it was caused by a cause outside of itself or it always existed. Since observed data shows that it has not always existed. By process of elimination we come to an outside, independent cause. The writers of the Bible claim they were personally told by God, that He is that one who made everything from nothing. This does fit within the framework of logic. Of course anyone can feel free to believe or reject the testimony of any witness.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Eli Gottlieb]

I didn't wish for anything. I pointed out a grammatical error by asking a question.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Mycroft_VIII]

Why is it absurd? Or rather why is it's absurdity relevant to it's truth or falsity.
Most of quantum physics is pretty 'absurd' and much of relativity seems so as well, but they're holding up pretty good so far.
    The real problem is trying to fathom what happened before time or what's outside of outside. Both nonsense questions, but if the universe (everything and all of time) has a finite duration prior to now those are the questions being asked.

Mycroft

Re:God of the Gaps

[arminw]

......Why is it absurd?.....

Because if the Universe created itself, without a cause, then the law of cause and effect has been violated. AFAIK every effect has a cause. We may not alway know the cause, but it is nevertheless there. There is plenty of objective evidence that the universe did not always exist, but had a beginning. The cosmic background radiation is one of these evidences. Science, among other things is the methodical study of causes and effects. It is at the heart of the scientific method.

Quantum physics isn't 'absurd' at all. It's just that that we have discovered that different rules apply in the realm of the ultra small. Einstein's relativity also seems absurd, since we don't experience traveling at relativistic speeds. Since we don't experience these rules in our everyday life, they seem absurd at times. Do you really believe that the time-space reality we experience through our senses is the only reality that can or does exist?

Re:God of the Gaps

[Citizen of Earth]

Ever study a godless society or those in power that don't believe in God

Yeah, those secular societies are the most backward in the world!

Re:God of the Gaps

[griblik]

The Bible tells us the first step began with God because God is the eternally self existent One. Modern science cannot really place the first step. Logic tells us the Universe either created itself, which is absurd, or it was caused by a cause outside of itself or it always existed. Of course, the natural response to that would be that if 'God' can be eternally self existant, why can't the universe? It can't have taken an act of will for god to come into existance because before existance there's no will. And if it didn't take an act of will, then what works for god works for the universe.

So if a god can exist, we don't need it to explain the universe. Which kind of makes the question of its existance moot.

The writers of the Bible claim they were personally told by God, that He is that one who made everything from nothing. This does fit within the framework of logic. It also fits within the framework of dementia - I mean no offense, but if you're not a believer and someone told you that an invisible sky fairy appeared from nowhere, created everything then vanished again, and it's true because this book here says it is, would you take their word for it?

Re:God of the Gaps

[arminw]

......if 'God' can be eternally self existant, why can't the universe?......

Because we have measured, observed evidence that the universe had a beginning. This beginning requires a cause. We have no scientific evidence for the cause, that is God. All science can tell us that there was a beginning and that like everything else has a cause. Therefore, by faith only we can attribute the cause to whatever someone tells us. We then have to decide the credibility of that someone. If you don't think that Moses and the other writers of the Bible are credible witnesses who heard God, then don't believe them. I happen to BELIEVE that the are true witnesses. You are free to NOT believe it.

We are told by witnesses that Jesus did all sorts of things which logic tells us are impossible. We call then miracles. Would a first century person call some of our modern technological gadgets "miracles"? They likely would, but we know more or less how they work. Could someone who possesses perfect knowledge about atomic and molecular structure, instantly assemble a pile of atoms into bread? How about rearranging water molecules to bear the weight of a person? Could someone who claims to be the author of life reverse the death process? After Jesus commanded the storm to cease, the witnesses in the boat were even more afraid of that One who could command the forces of nature, than they were in fear of losing their lives a few moments earlier.

Our logic is based upon what we know and have experienced. Unless a person knows all that can be known, it is illogical to use the word IMPOSSIBLE.

You have to make faith decision many times in life. You believe that the airplane you are boarding is safe, but you don't KNOW that. You believe what the doctor tells you, even if you don't understand why. You believe what the teacher or professor tells you even if you never heard of such things before. All of our lives are governed much more by faith than by sure knowledge.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice medieval theology.

"You can't draw an existent from an absolute-never-existance." Only problem is that that logic is absolutely wrong, since it imagines a time before time. It's what Wittgenstein would call philosophical nonsense, using words outside of their real use in real life.

There's no drawing of an existent from something which is non-existent. There's no start, since there no "outside", unlike in our lives. The "beginning" or "big bang" is just an extremum on one axis - having a set that ends at 0 does not imply that you have to have negative numbers in the set.

See, science does have to go by logic, but it doesn't have to go by these hoary old intuitive statements that were never logical to begin with. They just reflected a lack of imagination and a tendency to take some metaphors much too literally. Logic is just a set of statement construction rules, they lack the content that you wish to ascribe them to justify the more insane arguments going back to the Greeks.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Eivind Eklund]

I haven't just studied one - I live in one (Norway). And I see much less of those hubris problems than in, for instance, the US, where just about everybody seems to be crazy religious, both from what statistics I see and what I saw by being there. Like, most people go to church and stuff? WEIRD. We don't do that. And our leaders end up humanist and nice, not anywhere near as power-crazy as it seems to be in the US.

Eivind.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Liquidrage]

What are you rambling about? You have no right to claim that what came before the Big Bang is not knowable.

You are a classic case of God of the Gaps. Your gap is before the inflationary period of the Big Bang, and you're shoving God in there. That it isn't knowable now (and there are current theories being worked on to fill in this gap fyi) doesn't mean it always will be, and doesn't give you the right to claim it's unknowable.

Sadly, I didn't get back to this topic so no one will probably read this. But I find it so ironic that you attempted to respond to my "God of the Gaps" post with nothing but ignorant prattle, weak logic, and another f'in gap.

Re:neat for our children overlords!

[tomblag]

Which brings up an interesting question. If intelligence is some kind of naturally occurring, self perpetuating thing when certain conditions are met. Does it not appear humans are furthering it along with silicon? Sounds to me like we are creating an environment for the next stage of life.

oblig Dannett ref

[wikinerd]

I bet Daniel Dennett is happier now

noodley appendage

[mevets]

The article had too many confusing words in it, but I'm pretty sure I saw the FSM in the pretty slide. What will he think of next...

Re:astropost

[yoshi3]

the wot aztor ;ost o kmhy hjead i s hut i thjon, i drink alot lol

Re:from ooze we came?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious. Do you ever, you know, actually read your own posts? Unpunctuated, case-mangled, non-sequitor-ish loony ramblings have the very subtle effect of, you know, making you look like a simpering, witless, theo-clown.

Read it again. It's fascinating how much time he must have spent preparing that troll post. The case mangling has a purpose to it (yOUR, as a way of saying both "your" and "our", his use of "us" in "many of US" is obviously intended to reference the united states...mispellings are also purposeful, like "horribly" misspelled "whore-a-bully"...

There's no deep message embedded in it, but the idiot who posted it thinks he's brilliant. Probably an english major.

Grow some brains

[Mushukyou]

Religion *is* very old, and it sucks all ass. The reason why we religion bash is very simple. Religion attempts to brainwash mankind into thinking we already have all the answers to the ultimate questions. Science is the only way to find out what exists externally from ourselves. This being the case, religion is bullshit and must be trampled on whenever possible. The reason why science doesn't care about gods is because we made up gods. Science doesn't care about the things we make up - just like Unicorns or Fairies. The logical position is to be an atheist. The alternative is to sacrifice logic, common sense, and to basically be wrong.

Re:Grow some brains

[Creepy Crawler]

Then I would call you ignorant.

If you were as wise as you indirectly claim, then you would realise that there are so many more questions about everything than answers.

Not so amazingly, science cannot explain many things. For example, look at the Fermi Paradox. For another, investigate why quantum mechanics does what it does. Whatever we dig into, we open more questions and unexplainable phenomena.

The wisest I know are agnostic and are open to interesting interpretation. And they certainly don't religion-bash.

Re:Grow some brains

[Mushukyou]

Then I would call you ignorant. You can call a well educated man ignorant if you'd like, that's fine, but you'll look like a fool in the process.

If you were as wise as you indirectly claim, then you would realise that there are so many more questions about everything than answers. What the hell does this have to do with the conversation?

Not so amazingly, science cannot explain many things. Correction, science hasn't as of YET explained everything.

Whatever we dig into, we open more questions and unexplainable phenomena. To use the word "unexplainable" makes you the ignorant one.

The wisest I know are agnostic and are open to interesting interpretation. You must not know very many wise people, then, because agnosticism means you believe something to be unknown or unknowable. You must still be either theist or atheist. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge, theism/atheism has to do with belief - they are separate animals. I am open to many things, so it looks like you not only needed to be educated on agnosticism, but on atheism as well.

And they certainly don't religion-bash. Religion is bad for mankind.
It kills our people, slows scientific progress, and separates people into unnecessary groups that cause self segregation.
Without religion, the world would be a much, much better place (I'm not saying a paradise, but much better). It's good for mankind to "bash" religion. Very good. Before you respond to someone that knows their shit, think beforehand and make sure you know what you're talking about. Who's the ignorant one now?

Re:Grow some brains

[arminw]

.....The alternative is to sacrifice logic, common sense,......

What you are really doing is elevating your logic and common sense into the position of God. Do you know everything that could be known? Is there any human that does? If not, you cannot know there is no God any more than a religious person can know that there is. They don't have all knowledge either. Both can only BELIEVE. Who are you to say that your belief is truer or better than someone else's? Are you God or something? Does your belief give you the right to trample on the belief of other people just because YOU believe their belief is ridiculous or illogical? Is your vaunted, so called logic able to judge as someone who possesses all knowledge?

There isn't and there has never been a culture that did NOT have some sort of religion. In your human pride, you worship your intellect and logic. Humans are an incurably religious creature. Maybe, just maybe, that might tell you something about the Biblical assertion of humans being made in the image of God. An image stamped on a coin is pretty hard to obliterate. Nobody can do it without certainly destroying or severely damaging such a coin. This image of God in man is very hard to obliterate.

Re:Grow some brains

[Mushukyou]

What you are really doing is elevating your logic and common sense into the position of God. There is no god.

Do you know everything that could be known? Obviously not. I don't have to, though, to toss a hypothetical, flimsy idea such as a deity.

If not, you cannot know there is no God any more than a religious person can know that there is. I only claim to "know" there is no god insofar as I can "know" that there is no Peter Pan or Tooth Fairy.

hey don't have all knowledge either. Both can only BELIEVE. It's a logical conclusion to dismiss deities. Without proper evidence nor definition, it's tossed. Just like the Easter Bunny or magical Unicorns.

Are you God or something? There is no god.

Does your belief give you the right to trample on the belief of other people just because YOU believe their belief is ridiculous or illogical? I don't have beliefs. I have knowledge and ideas. Anyone has the right to trample on anyone's beliefs if said beliefs are irrational and without merit. It's the duty of a good citizen to point out fallacious statements. If it doesn't hold up to logic, it must be confronted. I would love to hear any argument against this - really, I would.

There isn't and there has never been a culture that did NOT have some sort of religion. This can be easily argued, but why? It has nothing to do with the topic we are discussing.

In your human pride, you worship your intellect and logic. I don't worship such things, I only use them. You're an idiot.

Humans are an incurably religious creature. Many are religious, but it's not necessary to be human. In fact, we are more human without religion.

Maybe, just maybe, that might tell you something about the Biblical assertion of humans being made in the image of God. You can shove your buybull up your ass.

An image stamped on a coin is pretty hard to obliterate. Nobody can do it without certainly destroying or severely damaging such a coin. This image of God in man is very hard to obliterate. We will rid ourselves of delusions, ignorance and gullibility to such a degree, someday, that nothing of what you say will pertain to our societies anymore.

Re:Grow some brains

[lnjasdpppun]

Does your belief give you the right to trample on the belief of other people just because YOU believe their belief is ridiculous or illogical?

No it doesn't.

Now consider that Christians ARE forcing their beliefs onto others with laws that make stem-cell research illegal (amongst other things) and you might get an idea of why people make a point of calling bullshit on other peoples ill founded beliefs.

Re:Grow some brains

[arminw]

......Without proper evidence nor definition.......

Evidence is never proof. Any jury has to BELIEVE evidence and witnesses presented on either side. They cannot KNOW. You also have to believe the evidence for or against God, you also cannot know. You have elevated your deluded, limited logic above all other evidence that has been or ever could be presented and made up your feeble mind. I'd hate to have you on a jury, because you are severely biased by what your perverted logic has concocted in your little head.

You repeatedly state: "There is no God" as if you know that. You are totally dishonest in making such an assertive statement. More honest would be, "I believe there is nor God". Better yet would be: "I don't know if there is or not. Present me with the evidence you believe you have for God and I'll consider it."

Centuries ago, before Jesus Christ walked on Earth, David wrote about you:

"The fool has said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 53:1)

I believe God authored the Bible. He never defends His existence therein, but calls the likes of you a fool. To me, being called a fool by the Creator of the Universe is frightening. It ought to be the same to you.

Re:Grow some brains

[Mushukyou]

Evidence is never proof. Yes, it is. You have to give evidence for your god. You have none. Go fish.

Any jury has to BELIEVE evidence and witnesses presented on either side. This isn't a courtroom.

They cannot KNOW. That's nice. It's still not a courtroom. To know is to have knowledge. To have knowledge is to have evidence. Give some.

You also have to believe the evidence for or against God, you also cannot know. No, you don't. Belief by definition is irrational. You shouldn't use beliefs. You should use knowledge and ideas. I can rephrase what you've said: "You also have to believe in the evidence for Flying Spaghetti Monster..." See how much sense that makes? We have no evidence for the FSM, just like we have none for your god. It's just a story.

You have elevated your deluded, limited logic above all other evidence that has been or ever could be presented and made up your feeble mind. Um, "deluded, limited logic"? You are so stupid. How is logic limited, and how is it deluded? You have no idea what you're talking about. Logic and reasoning is the only way we know anything. The only evidence you'll find for your god has to be scientific. Feeble mind? Man you're an idiot.

I'd hate to have you on a jury, because you are severely biased by what your perverted logic has concocted in your little head. You're a fucking idiot. I'm very objective and a critical thinker. I'd be perfect for a jury. Please don't think my calling you an idiot or anything of the like is an expression of any type of inability to comprehend nor deliver. It is just me being intolerant of someone who doesn't know how to think intelligently.

You repeatedly state: "There is no God" as if you know that. I say there is no god as surely as I say there is no Peter Pan. What part of that do you have a problem with?

You are totally dishonest in making such an assertive statement. Does that mean I can't say there is no Peter Pan?

More honest would be, "I believe there is nor God". That makes absolutely no sense. Congratulations.

Better yet would be: "I don't know if there is or not. Present me with the evidence you believe you have for God and I'll consider it." I don't know if there is a god or not. But logic says we must dismiss an idea which holds no merit. If you present me with evidence, I'll look at it. But until then, I dismiss it like I do the Easter Bunny. I'm an atheist, and I'm without belief in gods. It's the most logical position to have.

Centuries ago, before Jesus Christ walked on Earth, David wrote about you: "The fool has said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 53:1) Newsflash: Jesus never existed. Newsflash: The buybull was written by unknown authors and re-edited over time. And if a fool can figure out there is no god, what's your excuse?

I believe God authored the Bible. That's because you're a gullible, ignorant fool who should be living in a cave. You have no idea what a god is, no evidence for one, and no logical reason to think any god had anything to do with some stupid book we pulled out of our asses a long time ago.

He never defends His existence therein, That's because the authors couldn't defend it, since they made it the fuck up.

but calls the likes of you a fool. Of course! They can't have intelligent people running around showing how gullible people are... so they tell you to not pay attention to those that know better than you, because they want to keep you stupid and obedient.

To me, being called a fool by the Creator of the Universe is frightening. To me, being told by some fruitcake that they think there is some intelligent creator to the Universe is disturbing.

It ought to be the same to you. You're an idiot.

Re:from ooze we came?

[ScentCone]

There's no deep message embedded in it, but the idiot who posted it thinks he's brilliant. Probably an english major.

On reflection, I think you're right. That degree of wack-a-doo sophistry takes work. Hard, hard work. Because even for someone with a low IQ, it's a major project to lie that baldly about how you see the world, or (much harder!) actually suspend reason long enough to actually convince yourself that's how it really is.

Depends ...

[Pinky's Brain]

If you're a theistic fanatic acquiring knowledge partly to aid you in spreading your personal brand of lunacy by whatever means, then yes.

If you are a deist ala Einstein and Thomas Jefferson then fine.

Somewhere in between? Then it depends on where exactly.

One of the great mysteries of science

[Jeff1946]

After why the big bang, the origin of the first DNA to reproduce is greatest mysteries in science. Even with all we know, I have not encountered a plausible explanation about the first DNA was produced. Without invoking an intelligent designer, I would speculate the first life arose near ocean volcanic vents which provide an energy source and significant temperature variations. The temperature variations would cause double strand DNA to split at higher temps. then recombine when it moved to cooler temps much in the way the PCR is used to multiply DNA today. One of the truly remarkable things about the universe is its ablility to go from mostly hydrogen to world as we know it today.

Re:One of the great mysteries of science

[arminw]

.....which provide an energy source and significant temperature variations....

That is not enough. DNA is only a carrier of code, akin to a computer memory or disk. The information on a disk and the structure and material of the disk itself are entirely separate. The chemistry of ink on paper tells you nothing about the musical score or other material written thereon.

Nobody has ever demonstrated the creation of *any* code or language by anything other than a mind. DNA carries the language of life as authored by the Creator of life in the same way that paper carries the works of Shakespeare.

We may someday be able to copy life, in the same way we are able to copy digital information or an image on paper. Copying Shakespeare's plays on a XEROX is very far below authoring such play.

putting ? on story titles?

[icepick72]

I hate seeing question marks on story titles. Throw in the word "speculation" if you must but leave out the question mark because you're not asking a question, you're speculating on questionable content. It's happening way to much at Slashdot, Digg, et al. Mod me down to oblivion but I had to get it off my chest because it's been bothering me for a long time. Thanks for listening.

Re:putting ? on story titles?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's happening way to much

You mean way too much. Don't criticize grammar and/or spelling if you can't back it up yourself.

Re:putting ? on story titles?

[thebjorn]

It's hard to come up with intelligent titles in the very limited number of characters that you're allowed. Throwing in the word "speculation" would have made it too long. In this case the article suggests the question, so I'm not sure I see your point.

-- bjorn

Re:putting ? on story titles?

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally the problem is the story, not the title. After all we still have very little reason to believe that life started as a liquid crystal of DNA-strings. At least a question mark makes it easy to spot that the article is full of hot air.

God of the gap

[aepervius]

Science will never disprove god, and it ain't the job of science. But as science explain more and more, even up to the point we are nearing a reproduction of the apparition of life, domain once reserved to the "sacred & religious", the god of the gap back down to the shadow. I guess that there will be a point where only the primal move/big bang/or whatever could be assigned to such a god of the gap. And nothing afterward. This is what i think most of those attacking science want to fight against. The relegation of their god of the gap to an initial push, without intervention afterward.

Sample might be corrupt

[macz]

The sample came from Hugh Hefner's hot tub, so there was all kinds of DNA in it.

jolt of life

[Anonymous Coward]

what they need is a jolt of electricity and see if anything extraordinary happens..

or maybe dropping in some menthos and see if fountain of life will burst outta it.

Not excited yet

[sammysheep]

First, we need the spontaneous formation of a membrane that can selectively remove calcium. Calcium at higher concentrations is cytotoxic and will aggregate proteins/nucleic acids. Calcium regulation is therefore tight and ubiquitous in living things. See article.

Given such a membrane and some short DNA polymers, we also need to translate this random "information" into something meaningful. The current mechanism is: DNA -> RNA -> PROTEIN. This requires RNA polymerase or, at least, some ribosome-like enzyme to make a protein product. These enzymes are usually proteinaceous themselves--catch 22. We also need a DNA polymerase for replication if we wish to propagate our newly acquired "information".

I am more interested in how this spontaneous aggregation of DNA crystals could play a role in living cells.

Re:Not excited yet

[Anonymous Coward]

It was nice of you to point out the catch 22 . The only solution that I can think of to solve this is that DNA, RNA, and proteins are a triality much like seen in the new theory of everything.Because,they cant evolve without the other.I have noticed many simularities between E8 principal bundle connection and folding patterns,It may be that everything that is broken down to its fundemental properties exibit this triality.
              Lazygenes

Re:from ooze we came?

[Peter La Casse]

Because even for someone with a low IQ, it's a major project to lie that baldly about how you see the world, or (much harder!) actually suspend reason long enough to actually convince yourself that's how it really is.

Actually, it's pretty easy. Unfortunately.

Not exclusively divine

[CustomDesigned]

Science can't prove or disprove there's a god or gods, but it can turn up an awful lot of evidence that a particular idea of what a god is like is unlikely to be correct.

Scientists creating life from inanimate matter in the lab has absolutely nothing to say about whether god exists, but it pretty much blows out of the water the idea that creating life is the exclusive province of the divine. [italics mine]

Actually, *scientists* creating life from inanimate matter in the lab is an example of intelligent design (in this case the designer being the scientists). Historically, many proponents of Judaism and Christianity have proposed intermediates in their interpretation of creation (e.g. angels). A major point of just about all flavors of Jewish and Christian theology is that God prefers to use human (and sometimes angelic) agents as opposed to directly working miracles.

For that matter, we *already* design machines exhibiting many of the characteristics of "simple" life (robots), and the primary missing factor (self replication) is doable in principle - but just isn't cost effective for current applications and technology. (The ability to extract needed atoms from a wide variety of food sources via nano-tech is crucial to making self-replication cheap. Mining, smelting, growing crystals, etc are not easy to do on a small scale.) When we observe life springing from inanimate matter *without* the help of scientists (other than a reasonable interpretation of ancient conditions - or even modern conditions on some lifeless planet), then we will have observed abiogenesis.

Re:Not exclusively divine

[ceoyoyo]

I didn't say intelligent, I said divine.

Certainly all religions, or even all adherents of particular religions wouldn't find scientists creating life a threat. There are some though, and they seem to be particularly vocal about the origins and basic mechanics of life creating being off limits to humans.

So when the first scientist creates life that gives us three options (by my in-the-moment count): 1) there's nothing divine about creating life, 2) those scientists are the hand of God at work or 3) humanity has elevated itself to the point where it possesses at least some divine powers.

You're absolutely right, some religions will be happy with one or two of those three, some might even embrace all three possibilities. But there are some really big name ones that will have a hard time trying to figure out which one of those possibilities is the least abhorrent... and would very gladly block any research that might ever force us to examine the question.

Re:Not exclusively divine

[CustomDesigned]

So when the first scientist creates life that gives us three options (by my in-the-moment count): 1) there's nothing divine about creating life, 2) those scientists are the hand of God at work or 3) humanity has elevated itself to the point where it possesses at least some divine powers. Humanity has always been considered to already possess some divine powers by Jews and Christians (and other religions for different concepts of "god"). "Ye are gods." "We are made in the image of God." Classically, literary and mathematical works were pointed to as examples of "sub-creation". Humans creating self-consistent worlds that exist apart from their creator. In the computer age, we create dynamic virtual worlds as a matter of course, and people these virtual worlds with self-replicating agents. We interact with these virtual worlds via avatars, and occasionally work "miracles" by patching memory or using cheat codes. We "speak" (write software) worlds into existence. We are gods.

If you think about it, *our* origin is a historical, not a scientific question. It is a question of what *did* happen, not what we normally observe to happen. Consider this: if in the future, we succeed in creating artificial intelligence/life, we will have firmly established that we *could* have been designed. Our creations may go on in their turn to design intelligences. The source of that chain of created beings has to stop somewhere - at an uncreated intelligence. That stopping point is by definition "God". Why are we so sure that we are the ultimate uncreated intelligence? The application of Occam's razor to origins depends on your presuppositions.

So yes, all 3 possibilities have always been tendered in classic Jewish and Christian theology. The issue is not whether "only God" can create. The issue is whether we (humanity as a whole) are the top of the chain (or the top of one of many chains). The issue is whether we are God, or one of the gods.

Re:from ooze we came?

[ardle]

An example might once have been the kind of person who watched Fox News; now such an example would be someone who appears on Fox News.
I wish...

Intelligent design

[GottliebPins]

If one day we learn to create life in a test tube are we proving that life on earth evolved on its own or are we proving that as in the test tube life was created by design by an intelligent being? We have not proven or disproven anything.

Star Trek Crystal

[SoyChemist]

This reminds me of that scary crystal thing that almost destroyed the Starship Enterprise one time. On a side note, CU Boulder is an amazing school. It seems like they do some great nucleic acids work everytime I open a journal.

Clay

[Tatarize]

I'm always scoffing at IDiots and nutter creationists who think God poofed the universe into existence having themselves poofed God into existence for this specific purpose.

However, such experiences have given me the ability to spot arguments waiting to be made. A lot of the research into abiogenesis actually involves clay. It turns out to be a fantastic material for early abiotic evolving molecules. There's a shoe here just waiting to be dropped. Genesis says that God made man out of clay... abiogenesis suggest that life was formed out of clay. It's going to be one crappy crappy argument... but it's going to be made many many times.

Okay, back to figuring out how to bring about Stalinism. As an atheist, that's obviously where I'm going with all this 'question your preconceived notions', and 'ask for evidence for things before believing them' stuff. Because rational thinking is sure to bring about soviet state dogma. I just wish the religious hadn't figure this out so adeptly.

One Word.

[Ginger Unicorn]

Timecube.

Re:Topic?

[clayski]

Parent post (and its parent post) is not insightful. It is in fact OFFTOPIC - the topic is not the controversy but THE ACTUAL SCIENCE. That's the crux of the problem between science and religion, there are a few people on both sides who spend too much time worrying about discrediting the other point of view instead of refining their own. This (TFA) is fascinating from a molecular biology point of view because it has implications for DNA repair mechanisms and meiotic recombination

Entropy!

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need an "actor" (a selector) for messiness - you just need change, which is eternal.
For cleanliness, you need a selector since any old change will tend to messiness.

You got it, nutcase!

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Law of Cause and Effect" is a physical law - i.e, it only applies within the universe. And even there it has limited uses, since by relativity the "cause" and the "effect" depend on your relative accelerations. But it's not a "logical" law - logic has no time in it's construction!

Cause and effect cannot apply to the relationship between something at the beginning of time and something "before time", since there is NO BEFORE TIME. You're just applying a metaphor from every day life to things outside of everyday life. But keep on believing in magic, and keeping on dropping these old nostrums and nonsense that make you feel fuzzy inside, even though they've been clearly absurd for a century (2500 years if you go back to the pre-Socratic Greeks.)

Maybe you can read some real physics instead of "Chicken Soup For The Soul" before having firm opinions on physics and it's limits. I know, I know, it's hoping too much to be educated before making a statement.

Lord, even the Gnostics didn't make these stupid mistakes.

Re:You got it, nutcase!

[Mycroft_VIII]

Thanks, at least one person seems to sorta get (best most of us can do I suspect) that the 'laws' of the universe don't apply "before" or "outside" the universe. OR rather WE can't apply them. There is no BEFORE and no OUTSIDE yet even that has no meaning sorta like sqrt(-5) minutes ago or 5/0 miles away.
        To those who insist 'GOD' had to have made the universe or it couldn't exist I ask simply then who/what made 'GOD'. This kind of reasoning leads to 'turtle all the way down' and trying to discuss 'before time existed' and such.

Mycroft