Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Create RNA From Primordial Soup
Kristina at Science News writes "The RNA world hypothesis proposed 40 years ago suggested that life on Earth started not with DNA but with RNA. Now a team of scientists bolsters this hypothesis, having assembled RNA in the lab from a mixture that resembles what was likely the primordial soup. 'Until now,' Science News reports, 'scientists couldn't figure out the chemical reactions that created the earliest RNA molecules.' The new work started the RNA assembly chemistry from a different angle than what earlier work had tried."
Abiogenesis.... Take that ID-iots!
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
That they accidentally got RNA and thought they created it themselves? Did you read the article?
âoeBut while this is a step forward, itâ(TM)s not the whole picture,â Ferris points out. âoeItâ(TM)s not as simple as putting compounds in a beaker and mixing it up. Itâ(TM)s a series of steps. You still have to stop and purify and then do the next step, and that probably didnâ(TM)t happen in the ancient world.â
Sutherland and his team can so far make RNA molecules with two different bases, and there are still another two bases to figure out.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Demonstrating (something) does not demonstrate the non-existence of an intelligent designer.
Indeed; nothing can.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
they found a reaction pathway - that does not prove it happened that way - I too thought the article title indicated spontaneous generation of RNA from primordial soup.
I have always thought that spontaneous was the wrong word for this theory. Spontaneous implies *NO* external force. There could have been (I think there probably was) forces such as comets, lava, boiling water, glass, wind, fire, water, and mixture of those or just about anything else. To show that it is possible, with what was known to exist at that time is not proof that it happened exactly that way, but it could have. And I highly doubt we will ever figure out how it actually happened.
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
Anyone that only scans the synopsis is going to get the wrong idea. Read the article...it's more than likely that this never occurred in nature. Since when do organisms add material and cleanse and add and cleanse? Who threw the sugar in the first primordial soup? Where would RNA get it's instructions? There are too many holes... this isn't a breakthrough in science, It's an episode of "The Frugal Gourmet"
No, it wouldn't settle anything. Any being sufficiently more powerful than you can convince you that it is omnipotent. Any being sufficiently more clever than you could convince you that it is omniscient. An advanced alien race, claiming to be God, could determine who believes in God and who doesn't, and rain sulfur and fire on the nonbelievers, so a rain of fire and sulfur from something claiming to be God would not prove God exists, sorry.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
If God exists, and if he's omniscient and omnipotent, he could design an event guaranteed to convince every non-believer in the world of his existence. The fact that he doesn't means either:
a) he doesn't care, so why bother worshiping him?
b) he doesn't exist, so why bother worshiping him?
c) he likes to play mind games, so why bother worshiping him?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
You just made three unsupported and ridiculous assertions as if they were a logical argument. Nice hat trick.
Religion does not need to rely on faith. Buddhism certainly doesn't, but I know some consider that a philosophy, not a religion. Still, it is listed as a major world religion, and it requires no one to take anything on faith.
Predestination and free will are both pointless human speculations unsupported by any human experiences, and if free will were real, it would be a curse, not a gift, especially considering your God's planned punishments for going against arbitrary rules that you have no way of knowing came from Him.
If God were to be in residence and free will were real, God's presence would not diminish free will. So what? At most, nobody would choose to sin anymore. I don't choose to froom, either, and my not being able to choose to froom does not diminish any free will I may have.
But people could still choose to sin knowing God existed, I know I would, just to register my disapproval of God's arbitrary and unjust actions. Infinite punishment for finite transgressions, my ass. Fuck you, God, I'm going out to fuck a guy JUST TO PISS YOU OFF, YOU SHIT! I'm not even gay, I'll probably hate it, but I'm going to do it just because you said you'd torture me forever if I did. I don't negotiate with terrorists.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Life is complex and it works well. It's not proof, it's evidence. The laws of physics yield a consistent universe. It's not proof, it's evidence.
Both of these things are only evidence of themselves. Nothing more. You cannot logically extrapolate these things into anything more than they are without direct evidence of something more. No matter how much evidence the universe gives of its own existence, it does not point to anything beyond that, be it God or invisible unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters, sauce be upon him, or anything else. The current body of evidence points only to its own existence.
If you want to posit the existence of God, based on the evidence provided by the universe, then you need direct evidence of God (well, you also need a clear, falsifiable definition of God). Otherwise, Occam's Razor gives us the more likely conclusion. Given the same body of evidence, the simpler explanation tends to be the correct explanation, unless more evidence appears to show otherwise.
In this case, the body of evidence: The universe.
- H0.) The universe just exists.
- H1.) The universe exists because God created it. God just exists.
Given the same body of evidence, H0 is the more likely explanation, and there is no REASON to assume H1 without further evidence.
While you cannot prove a negative, in science, lack of evidence for H1 is provisional evidence for H0. Also, any scientist knows that you can NEVER prove anything based on observation. You can only disprove it OR decrease the likelihood of its falseness.
NB: Most of the "you" in this post is the general "you" not a specific "you" to the parent post.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Neither the laws of physics nor the complexity of life in any way provide objective evidence that there is an omnipotent, supernatural god. They can also be evidence that complexity can arise from simplicity, and that the universe happens to have hospitable conditions for life.
Only someone who believes in god would see those as evidence of god. Don't feel bad though. Your ape hierarchical mind is probably hardwired to believe in god. Believing in hierarchy is good for the group.
d)it's a test of faith.
No, that's not d), that's just c)he likes to play mind games, so why bother worshiping him?
"tests of faith" are idiotic mind games. What sort of a worthwhile supreme beings gives us good brains with the ability to reason and only rewards the people who are complete failures?
Obviously a only sleazebag beneath our contempt.
The OP covered all possible possibilities.
Let's apply that logic to the first sighting of sperm fertilizing an egg.
1. Laboratory conditions. Check.
2. "The new findings suggest a possible method for traits to be passed from both mother and father to child..." Check.
3. Proof that babies come from sex. Not a chance.
4. Someone with a time machine that can verify that my mother would degrade herself like that? Nope.
Fertilization still remains philosophical at best, NOT science.
You're conflating an event with a process. The process of abiogenesis (generating life from non-living matter) is a perfectly valid scientific field, of which this experiment was a part.
The event(s) in the past that are hypothesised to be the initiation of life on the planet are a related, but ultimately independent claim that despite your objection can also be investigated scientifically. Learning about the processes of generating life from non living matter are simply a necessary precursor to investigating the actual event of the origin of life on the earth.
You don't need a time machine to scientifically establish past events. You simply need to be able to investigate the evidence that exists today. Applying your rationale to your own beliefs about the origin of life: presumably you have none since you don't have a time machine to travel back and see it for yourself. Presumably you believe that the claims of creationists are inherently empty, since they don't have a time machine to travel back and view the garden of eden for themselves.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons