Chemists May Be Zeroing In On Chemical Reactions That Sparked the First Life (sciencemag.org)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chemists May Be Zeroing In On Chemical Reactions That Sparked the First Life (sciencemag.org)

Posted by BeauHD on Friday May 19, 2017 @10:00PM from the spark-of-life dept.

sciencehabit quotes a report from Scientific Magazine: DNA is better known, but many researchers today believe that life on Earth got started with its cousin RNA, since that nucleic acid can act as both a repository of genetic information and a catalyst to speed up biochemical reactions. But those favoring this "RNA world" hypothesis have struggled for decades to explain how the molecule's four building blocks could have arisen from the simpler compounds present during our planet's early days. Now chemists have identified simple reactions that, using the raw materials on early Earth, can synthesize close cousins of all four building blocks. The resemblance isn't perfect, but it suggests scientists may be closing in on a plausible scenario for how life on Earth began. The study has been published in the journal Nature.

121 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Let's watch the creationists squirm by spiritplumber · 2017-05-19 22:48 · Score: 1

figuring out how life began would be a great boon to the reverse-engineering of, well, everything that came after.

--
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
1. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by wolfheart111 · 2017-05-19 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  Then we ourselves will become god. :)
  
  --
  [($)]
2. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-19 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  Why be God when you can be Godder than God?
3. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-19 23:34 · Score: 0
  
  Finding out the mechanisms would improve the estimation on probability of similar life on other worlds.
4. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-05-20 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  Or dogs? I mean, it's reverse engineering, right?
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
5. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-05-20 00:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Evolution can happen but it is always devolution (things getting worse not better). Natural selection is the exact opposite of evolution. You may need to understand a little bit here such as evolution is the actual building or increasing of genetic information which is the opposite of natural selection which is the reduction of the genetic information or the selection of existing genetic information.
  Look, just because it happened to you doesn't mean it happened to everyone else.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
6. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 00:25 · Score: 0
  
  You may need to understand a little bit here such as evolution is the actual building or increasing of genetic information
  
  During the times when the first spine formed, the length of the genome quadrupled which gave a lot of space for future variations. So, it does happen.
7. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 00:46 · Score: 0
  
  That's an oversimplification of the concepts of evolution and natural selection. You would do well to "look into" the science a little more.
8. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Applehu+Akbar · 2017-05-20 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  You're a creationist, and you're squirming. Mission accomplished.
9. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by turbidostato · 2017-05-20 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  I for one welcome our ourselves overlords!
10. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sorry, but I strongly believe that scientists will replicate abiogenesis in a lab sometime in the next 10 to 30 years, perhaps 40 at the outside. We're understanding enough about the process of simple (as in easily found in lifeless spaces in the real world) compounds combining to amino acids, amino acids to proteins, proteins to RNA or DNA, and also learning about molecules that self-organize into membranes (hinting at how to create cells). Combining all this knowledge, we will eventually be able to start with a closed container of nothing but 'dead chemicals', and by applying energy, get those chemicals to transform into something that would have to be defined as alive. Once abiogenesis is actually observed, the creationist argument that it is impossible will have to be thrown away forever.
11. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 02:16 · Score: 0
  
  Intentionally misunderstanding the argument? The important question isn't who it's HOW. Even if you believe in a creator, you can find the stubborn belief that the world is 6000 years old and was created (along with fully formed humans) by that creator waving his magic wand, is utter stupidity in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Someone who believes in God can certainly also believe that God created the universe 13.8 billion years ago and science is showing us how everything happened since. But if a scientist creates life in the lab, it throws one argument the young-earth camp uses (abiogenesis is impossible) right out the frickin window.
12. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by MightyYar · 2017-05-20 02:51 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  the creationist argument that it is impossible will have to be thrown away forever.
  That's very naive. They believe in magic, so they can change the argument in literally any way that they can imagine. If you demonstrated abiogenesis, they'd stop saying it's "impossible" and start saying, "See? You needed an intelligent being to set it all up!"
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
13. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by iggymanz · 2017-05-20 02:59 · Score: 0
  
  I didn't see any squirming there. Experiments making the RNA precursors using electric sparks in a "primordial soup" were done decades ago. We're no closer to "creating" life then than now. Suppose one day we did create life, that would be life from an intelligent creator, wouldn't it?
14. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by mark-t · 2017-05-20 03:42 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, having an in-universe explanation for how something can plausibly happen while being consistent with understood physical phenomenon doesn't mean that a creator didn't do it in the first place... if it were created, it would only mean that it was created to include all of the necessary ingredients for its creation. This is only deceptive if you are expecting the existence of such a creator to be somehow falsifiable in the first place.
  I'm not going to try and convince you a creator exists.... but the existence of phenomena that might appear to make such a creator superfluous no more implies such a being's superfluousness to the existence of the universe than the existence of a character backstory dated to a point before a book begins suggests that an author didn't write the book.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
15. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Dread_ed · 2017-05-20 03:43 · Score: 0
  
  I sincerely appreciated this comment. Thank you sir!
  
  --
  When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
16. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  the creationist argument that it is impossible will have to be thrown away forever.
  That's very naive. They believe in magic, so they can change the argument in literally any way that they can imagine. If you demonstrated abiogenesis, they'd stop saying it's "impossible" and start saying, "See? You needed an intelligent being to set it all up!"
  I am a Greek Orthodox Christian, so, as my Church (and that of Catholics, and of most other Christians denominations) does, i also accept "science" (i.e., the evolution theory, the Big Bang, and the other scientific theories about life), and i think i understand enough to understand that even if you demonstrate abiogenesis, YOU STILL NEED AN INTELLIGENT BEING TO SET IT ALL UP!. How does abiohenesis exclude God?
  I think that many/most "anti-creationists" are guilty of what they accuse the creationists for: religious fundamentalism (with the religion in their case being "SCIENCE") - the problem is that in the same way you can not answer with religion the questions about the physical, you can not answer with science the questions about the metaphysical.
17. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by jlowery · 2017-05-20 04:29 · Score: 2
  Please check all that apply to your personal belief system:
  The earth is flat
  Gravity does not exist
  The moon is a hologram
  The Sun is 6,000 miles above us
  Dinosaurs never existed
  The Grand Canyon was formed by The Flood
  Climate Change was invented to enrich evil scientists
  By answering this survey, you help us identify the whackadoodliest of the whackadoodles. Thank you for your participation.
  --
  If you post it, they will read.
18. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Gr8Apes · 2017-05-20 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't see any squirming there. Experiments making the RNA precursors using electric sparks in a "primordial soup" were done decades ago. We're no closer to "creating" life then than now. Suppose one day we did create life, that would be life from an intelligent creator, wouldn't it?
  But creating life means we will know how it can happen, and then can assess whether random chance would make it happen and the odds of that. Hint, yes random chance can make life happen as the evidence is all around you, and the odds are greater than most will think.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
19. Re: Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  Because there is no evidence that anything metaphysical has any measurable effect on anything in the universe.
20. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  As Hawking (and no doubt many others) have said: God is unnecessary. Occam's Razor applies; it is part of the foundational principles of Science. We no more need to invoke god to "set it all up" than we need pixies to push each atom in the direction of the net gravitational force. I'd be quite inclined to believe in the supernatural in a world where bad things didn't happen to good people. This is not such a world. My fundamental problem with the supernatural is 1. it explains nothing about ultimate causes 2. Simpler explanations exist for nearly anything it does explain. 3. It is fundamentally an appeal to authority, not evidence.
21. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by R3d+M3rcury · 2017-05-20 06:19 · Score: 1
  Adding:
  
  All of the above
  All of the above and more
  That should help improve the efficiency.
22. Re: Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  Dude. You're a whack job.
  Please go back to church, build a plane off beliefs and faith-- then "fly" it straight to your creator.
23. Re: Let's watch the creationists squirm by dougdonovan · 2017-05-20 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  the first life on the planet. that would be my first wife.
24. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by MightyYar · 2017-05-20 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  I think that many/most "anti-creationists" are guilty of what they accuse the creationists for: religious fundamentalism
  Of course we are. Except that only our "religion" (we would call it a philosophy) can produce reliable predictions about the natural world. We make absolutely no attempt to describe the supernatural, and are very happy to leave that to religion.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
25. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  No: the odds are about 1x10^60 (Levinthal) .... or 1x10^10^113 (Tipler) ... pick your sub-argument ... but the answer is still NO.
26. Re: Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  Except for what started the whole process.
27. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by iggymanz · 2017-05-20 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  yes yes, I agree with you.
  But what if life or RNA precursors did some to Earth in the past, say on a meteor or whatever, and it was spread that way by some intelligence somewhere? Is that point of view impossible?
28. Re: Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 10:52 · Score: 0
  
  Lambs. Flour. Yogurt. Garlic.
  Given enough time they spontaneously arrange themselves into souvlaki. No God needed, just Brownian motion.
29. Re: Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 11:07 · Score: 0
  
  Prediction of the past? Yeaaaah, you right. Predictions are about the past.
30. Re: Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 11:24 · Score: 0
  
  You have no intelligent reply, so you insult-kinda shows your intelligence.
31. Re: Let's watch the creationists squirm by mark-t · 2017-05-20 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  Generally, the most typical retaliation to people that are believed to be off their rocker is to either institutionalize them if they pose any kind of danger to others, or to simply ignore them entirely.
  Even bothering to waste the time to have said what you did suggests that I must have struck some kind of nerve. Or did you seriously think that resorting to name calling was somehow going to make you look particularly ingenious?
  With that out of the way, let me point out that I wasn't even suggesting that the universe necessarily even *has* a creator, I am only stating that while one may observe that the universe contains things which might appear to make a creator irrelevant to the universe's existence, and by virtue of Occam's razor come to the conclusion that it is more likely a creator doesn't exist, this line of reasoning is only practical if you expect that the universe's creator was somehow a part of the universe in the first place.... By definition, anything that exists beyond the observable universe cannot be perceived, but it grossly inaccurate to suggest that anything that cannot be perceived is seriously more likely to not exist at all.
  One cannot rationally draw any conclusions about the existence or non-existence of the universe's creation by an intelligent entity because the parameters for testability do not exist in this universe, and trying to argue with anyone as though they should exist is either making the assumption that there is no creator in the first place, or else one is imposing biased and unproven limitations on such a creator, possibly without even intending to do so.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
32. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by John+Bokma · 2017-05-20 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  Evolution can happen but it is always devolution (things getting worse not better) Natural selection is the exact opposite of evolution. You may need to understand a little bit here such as evolution is the actual building or increasing of genetic information which is the opposite of natural selection which is the reduction of the genetic information or the selection of existing genetic information.
  Obviously you have no clue about evolution, just like every other creanutter. Look up polyploidy, horizontal gene transfer, etc. And read something like "Why Evolution is True" instead of millennia old piss-poor fiction only the frauds and the gullible fall for.
  
  --
  
  Perl Programmer for hire
33. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 12:40 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sorry, but I strongly believe that scientists will replicate abiogenesis in a lab sometime in the next 10 to 30 years, perhaps 40 at the outside.
  I find it interesting that whenever someone makes a prediction like this the time period is always within their own lifetime. That is just so convenient! How wonderful for you that you will see this in your very own lifetime! I am an atheist, but I do not think we will create life from non-life in the next century. Maybe just maybe we will do it in the next 100,000 years though. Will you still be alive in 53,268 years when we actually do it? Maybe because won't we figure out immortality in your lifetime too? It's all gonna happen in your lifetime. Interstellar travel too! amirite?
  Really 'life' is just nanotech machinery. Nanotech robotics. Self-replicating machines made from very very tiny building blocks. Not only do we have no idea how to do that. We are not even remotely close to even imagining how we could do that. We don't have the slightest clue. It's going to be tornado-in-the-junkyard speculation until we get orders of magnitude better at nanotech.
34. Re: Let's watch the creationists squirm by backslashdot · 2017-05-20 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  That's like saying astronomy can't be true because if you cant see what's happening inside the room next door right now how can we see what's happening in a galaxy one billion trillion zillion miles away.
35. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 17:40 · Score: 0
  
  I'm a creationist and I'm not squirming. Unless there is some actual repeatable science happening it is just clickbait. If life just sort of happened by chance it should at least be easier for us to create it ourselves. So far, despite what the headlines here are trying to imply, no one has close to any proof that accidental abiogenesis is possible.
  Also, if do end up demonstrating that life can indeed come from non-life, I still will not squirm. Quite the opposite actually, I will be amazed. I love science and I love learning new things about how our world works. Creationists generally do not squirm at repeatable testable science. Rather they squirm at 'alternative facts' being put forth as scientific facts.
36. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 17:45 · Score: 0
  
  Once abiogenesis is actually observed, the creationist argument that it is impossible will have to be thrown away forever.
  You are correct. I am a creationist. If it can actually be observed and tested, then I would certainly be willing to dispose of that argument. However, until then, it is still a valid argument, which may indeed be true.
37. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 17:50 · Score: 0
  
  That's very naive. They believe in magic, so they can change the argument in literally any way that they can imagine. If you demonstrated abiogenesis, they'd stop saying it's "impossible" and start saying, "See? You needed an intelligent being to set it all up!"
  You are incorrect. I am a creationist. And if science can demonstrate life can come from non-life in the test tube, then it can certainly happen by chance without needing an intelligent being to set it all up. Until we prove that, however, I still am of the belief that creating life from non-life is not possible. If science proves otherwise through testable, repeatable observation, then I am certainly willing to change my beliefs.
38. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 17:55 · Score: 0
  
  It is possible that the Grand Canyon was formed by a flood. Barely anyone, even the majority of creationists, would believe in any of the others.
39. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 18:06 · Score: 0
  
  Obviously you have no clue about evolution, just like every other creanutter. Look up polyploidy, horizontal gene transfer, etc. And read something like "Why Evolution is True" instead of millennia old piss-poor fiction only the frauds and the gullible fall for.
  I think the person you were responding to was talking about brand new beneficial information. What you are referring to is exactly not this. polyploidy is just duplication. It is still the same information. For example, if I photocopy a page out of a book, I do not get a completely different page with new words and new meaning. It is the same thing. No new and beneficial information has been attained.
  Likewise, your example of horizontal gene transfer is the same thing. If I copy a page from one book and add it to another book, it is true that I am adding information to this other book and thereby mutating it into a different book. However, the information is not new information. It is information that already existed and came from another source.
  So far, you have only succeeded in casting insults to the original poster. But, if that floats your boat then so be it.
40. Re: Let's watch the creationists squirm by ChrisMaple · 2017-05-20 18:28 · Score: 1
  
  Except for what caused the hypothetical God.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
41. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 19:12 · Score: 0
  
  Certainly that would be a problem for the ex-nihilo young earth creationists.
  Creationists who believe in an ~14b year old universe, and a God that uses "natural" processes for his work should only have their belief strengthened by this.
42. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by h33t+l4x0r · 2017-05-20 19:36 · Score: 1
  
  Any time someone uses the word "devolution" you know instantly that they don't get it. And yes I'm looking at you, that Star Trek TNG episode where the crew turns into spiders and cavemen.
43. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-05-20 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  No, the odds are what they are, and a few people thought they knew what they are, and wrote about it, but we don't know if they were right or wrong (most likely wrong, as it is most commonly the case).
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
44. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-05-20 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  That would have to be some flood, abrading away material to such depths in such a short time frame.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
45. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-21 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  That would have to be some flood, abrading away material to such depths in such a short time frame.
  The Biblical flood was apparently quite torrential so was indeed "some flood" as you put it.
46. Re: Let's watch the creationists squirm by MightyYar · 2017-05-21 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  I don't follow. If "what started the whole process" is natural, the philosophy with the best track record in understanding the natural world is the most likely way to find it. If it is not natural, it is outside of the domain of science and you can have it.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
47. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-21 15:56 · Score: 0
  
  You miss the point utterly. There are pathways to make each of the necessary components except ribosugar (and there's probably a replacement for that one). The problem is the pathways are incompatible with each other, and trying to find a natural method to mix the sources together seems to be a hopeless endeavor. I found one try once, and it doesn't work because it's in the bottom of the ocean and has a step requiring lightning.
48. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Gr8Apes · 2017-05-22 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  We'll go with the Holmes statement there:
  
  when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
  What if.
  We can make a whole series of what ifs. Let's start with "What if life spontaneously started on earth?" It is possible, it is not even improbable, we can't rule it out. That one should be at the top of the list until some more improbable possibility becomes less improbable. This position does not preclude other life originating elsewhere.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
49. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Gr8Apes · 2017-05-22 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  So you, specifically, didn't find the answer to this question. And that precludes anyone else from discovering it how?
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
50. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-05-22 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  As the thousands of man hours tick up higher and higher as we attempt to understand how to create life, it only re-enforces what the man on the street with basic common sense already knows: Life, including man, was designed by a Designer, not by accident. If it takes 100,000 man hours (already likely spent) figuring out how to create life, and a multi million dollar lab to create it, all that proves is that it requires intelligence and direction to create life, not random chance (I doubt that we will ever be able to truly create life, because even if you take an organism, with all the parts and chemicals in the right place, once it has died, we can't figure out how to bring it back to life, let alone creating all the complex molecules, organelles and chemical processes from scratch and then getting them to come to life). At a basic level, we don't understand what makes one thing alive and another thing dead (sure, we understand the biochemical processes and actions, but the spark of life that causes those things to begin? No. (It's like building a mechanical clock, half of the knowledge required is how to build all the parts, the other half is how to properly apply an outside force to start the clock in motion. Otherwise, Frankenstein's monster would not be just fiction). Every process requiring greater entropy is a basic physics principle (2nd law of Thermodynamics) that evolution ignores. Evolutionists believe in science from the dark ages (spontaneous generation, disproved centuries ago) and their cognitive dissonance is amazing. Even this article is not about actual scientific discovery but speculation "Scientists may be"...
  Evolutionists continually do mental back flips to try and justify their quackery and at this point people who have been paying attention have figured out that the Evolutionists of today will be viewed in much the way as the Vatican of the dark ages in the future. Evolutionary science today is science in name only, because they start with a conclusion and exclude all evidence (or opinions, or scientists) who indicate otherwise...
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
51. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-05-22 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  To be clear, we believe an intelligent, extra-dimensional Being created all things in this universe. It is not necessarily magic, but the mechanisms are currently unknown to us (and thus appear supernatural to our perception and understanding). This Creator also left instructions for how to act and there are many people out there who strongly dislike these instructions and are willing to go to great lengths to pretend that the Creator does not exist...
  Even if you manage to spend 100,000 man hours in a multi-million dollar lab and figure out how to create living tissue from non living material, all you have proven is that to create life from non life it requires directed, intelligent intent. Your above assertion is like saying that because cars are built in a factory, setting off a bomb in a junk yard can also create the same exact car... Please try to control your emotions and apply a modicum of logical intelligence to the discussion...
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
52. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-22 11:03 · Score: 0
  
  You should take a look at the difference between the scientific method and the creationist method:
  https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/51/84/a7/5184a722bccf87c472b5bca7c7b2c2cf.gif
53. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by MightyYar · 2017-05-22 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  It is not necessarily magic, but the mechanisms are currently unknown to us (and thus appear supernatural to our perception and understanding).
  Right, so science makes no claim to deal with that at all. It's impossible to use science to explore that realm.
  
  Your above assertion is like saying that because cars are built in a factory, setting off a bomb in a junk yard can also create the same exact car...
  At least I'm using a philosophy with a demonstrated record of success to try and understand how the car was actually built, whereas you are content knowing that it was conjured by an unobservable sky pixie.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
54. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by RockDoctor · 2017-05-22 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  Then all you've done is move the location for the origin of life from here (where we've got a modest chance of figuring out what happened) to an unknown location which was "nearby" 3.5 billion years or more ago. I.e. you've made the problem far, far harder, and delayed any realistic chance of solving it until after we've assessed in detail (i.e. visited dozens (*) of other planetary systems).
  That's the fundamental problem with all variants of panspermia (the idea you're promoting ; no, it's not a new idea, except possibly to you) : you move the real problem off the table to somewhere where it's going to be much harder to examine, without contributing anything helpful to the solution of the problem.
  (*) How many planetary systems? I'd say until it's been several generations since a new type of planetary system has received fieldwork. Which would be the 3rd or 5th example of each type. With what we're still learning from the likes of Kepler, that'd be upwards of 30 to 50 planetary system examples needing examination, and the know our sample of known systems is still seriously biased towards "hot Jupiters" just by the nature of the observations we make. Think of a number to answer that, but anything less than several millennia would just provoke derisory laughter.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
55. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by iggymanz · 2017-05-22 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  If life did not arise here, then the problem is far, far harder to study and that is reality. Plenty of credible scientists are open to the possibility at least life did not arise on Earth. The increased difficulty of studying origins in that scenario is not an argument against it, you are being illogical.
  Of course the idea of panspermia is old, more ancient then you know.
56. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by spiritplumber · 2017-05-22 20:53 · Score: 1
  
  can't tell if serious....
  
  --
  Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
57. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-23 13:10 · Score: 0
  
  This Creator also left instructions for how to act
  Yeah. Evidence, please?
  Assuming you're referring to the Christian bible, there's no rational basis for thinking the "instructions" therein are of divine origin, rather than being prescribed by humans who want you to act according to their own wishes.
58. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-25 11:56 · Score: 0
  
  > Of course the idea of panspermia is old, more ancient then you know.
  Naturally. Almost as old as the idea that life is "special" and not just chemistry!
  The fact is, the more we learn about life, the less likely that concept becomes. We have dug down to the most basic molecules interacting inside cells, and they behave just as physics and chemistry dictate. There's no indication of any life force or supernatural influence on the physical elements of life.
  The big bugbear is consciousness, subjective feeling and meaning. The more we learn about life on a physical level the more remote an explanation for mental phenomena gets.
  I mean, why should a molecule fitting into a receptor or a neuron spiking faster feel like anything??
59. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-05-29 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  It is not necessarily magic, but the mechanisms are currently unknown to us (and thus appear supernatural to our perception and understanding).
  Right, so science makes no claim to deal with that at all. It's impossible to use science to explore that realm.
  It is not impossible to explore that realm, we just don't know how yet. It was impossible to explore the moon or Mars for medieval man, that didn't mean it was actually impossible in the absolute sense.
  
  Your above assertion is like saying that because cars are built in a factory, setting off a bomb in a junk yard can also create the same exact car...
  
  At least I'm using a philosophy with a demonstrated record of success to try and understand how the car was actually built, whereas you are content knowing that it was conjured by an unobservable sky pixie.
  No, I am relying on the eyewitness accounts of tens of thousands of historical, real people who have had first hand interactions with the supernatural. You can blow it off all you want, but that means you are ignoring thousands of years of recorded history (or revising it to fit your bias, which a true scientist would never do). Science as a philosophy tells us what is knowable to us. If something is unknowable to us, science by definition fails to explain it. There are other tools besides science, history being one, logic being another. They are no less valid at understanding our world (the scientific method is actually just a limited extension of logic that deals with understanding only the physical world).
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
60. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 11:54 · Score: 0
  
  No, I am relying on the eyewitness accounts of tens of thousands of historical, real people who have had first hand interactions with the supernatural. You can blow it off all you want, but that means you are ignoring thousands of years of recorded history (or revising it to fit your bias, which a true scientist would never do).
  You are relying on hearsay. Claims of the supernatural are nothing new or unusual, but science changed the game by saying "prove it."
  So far, in the hundreds of years since the scientific method was hatched, nobody has been able to produce incontrovertible evidence of anything supernatural.
  Testimony is not evidence. Science has even demonstrated how unreliable eyewitness testimony is in court. Show me, don't tell me.
61. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by iggymanz · 2017-06-01 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  I have no problem agreeing life is "just chemistry" (and physics). Consciousness is in that realm too. What is ridiculous is our fantasy that a purely digital system could have self-awareness. Biological neural networks are not digital.
62. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-02 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  Considering that we have no clue what conscious self-awareness actually is or how it relates to physical reality, I don't think there's any particular reason to draw a line between digital and analog systems when speculating whether they could be self-aware.
63. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by iggymanz · 2017-06-02 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  I have scientific basis to say they may not possibly be digital, as all extant self-aware systems are decidedly analog. Not even conscious effort on the part of an analog self-aware system to make a digital one has born any effort in the last 80 years.
64. Re:Let's watch the creationists squirm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-03 10:52 · Score: 0
  
  Fair enough. But the lack of success on our part to create a digitally based consciousness doesn't disqualify such a concept, since we also have not created analog based consciousness (unless you count the good, old-fashioned 'birds-and-bees' method).
What about hardware ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-19 23:57 · Score: 0

As far my understanding goes, DNA and RNA are analogous to software. Being able to synthesize them doesn't provide an answer to the question "where does life come from?". You would still need the hardware that interprets the DNA or RNA, that is a cell or something simpler but similar.
1. Re:What about hardware ? by ColdWetDog · 2017-05-20 00:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Don't go pushing bad analogies - you'll be talking about cars next.
  The fun thing about nucleic acids is that they can hold data (genetic information) and act as catalysts by folding into specific shapes. RNA in particular can fold into complex 3D structures by itself or paired with some simple molecules like ligands. The "RNA Hypothesis" generally holds that an RNA - like molecule both encoded information to repeat itself
  All a primitive 'living' structure had to do was make more of it's primitive self and in the process make enough errors to allow for evolutionary change. You don't really need an 'interpreter' - it is a function of the molecule itself. Yes, evolutionary drive pushed the creation of all sorts of ancillary functions, but in the beginning it may well have just been a nucleic acid string trying to make a nucleic acid string.
  The process that made the individual nucleic acids is presumed to be abiotic - just a series of chemical reaction that managed to take place with some frequency on primordial earth (or wherever). TFA is the first (according to them, don't really follow this line of research) proposed reaction to make both types of RNA precursor bases. While not strictly necessary - billions of years allows for several distinct unlikely processes to happen simultaneously (think bowels of petunias, or rather, don't) it seems 'cleaner' to have a single, tweak able pathway to create the pool of chemicals that will turn into RNA, then the underlying precursor to all like, then slime molds, then politicians.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:What about hardware ? by Anne+Thwacks · 2017-05-20 00:42 · Score: 2
  
  then slime molds, then politicians.
  Like the guy said: it ain't evolution, its devolution, if its getting worse!
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
3. Re: What about hardware ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  Ok that clears things up for me, I didn't know the molecule had itself the ability to replicate.
4. Re:What about hardware ? by PopeRatzo · 2017-05-20 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  think bowels of petunias
  Please make this happen. I'd save a fortune on air freshener.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
5. Re:What about hardware ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 02:59 · Score: 0
  
  Imagine the oceans were full of randomly arranged amino acids stacked together. Any RNA structure that was capable of self-replication would need to figure how to identify other chains of amino acids and retain the ones it needs. A linear chain of RNA would need to match opposites. Geodesic dome shapes would need to match the fundamental shape for each side such as triangles or cupolas. Maybe something could form like a coin holder and store chains of particular amino acids and then use them.
  In the past I've converted a basic library software API so that it could be used as a virtual machine with it's own script language. Those starts off as an internal function that was used to replaced a half dozen different functions through small string scripts. Then those internal scripts are written out into external files and read in. Then they become ever increasingly complex with subroutine calls, conditional statements and loops and a stack. Eventually they get recombined until there is only a single script program. Then it is completely reconfigurable.
6. Re:What about hardware ? by Dread_ed · 2017-05-20 04:15 · Score: 2
  
  Something in my brain keeps advocating for the application of additional pressure and temperature to these experiments. That same something thinks that life did not evolve in primordial oceans but in the mid to deep lithosphere. Higher pressure and temperature require less catalysis. Temperature gradients abound. Worth a look at least.
  The most fascinating thing about the whole issue is that all life and even the "non-life" we see is not a result of random chance. It is a direct result of the fundamental underpinnings and natural laws that govern matter and energy in this universe. Our structure, function, and form is as intricately tied to Carbon 14 and H2O as it is to the weight of the electron, the speed of light, and the force of gravity. That we are a construct of these laws and interactions, and that we study these laws and interactions while being a product of them, fascinates me.
  
  --
  When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
7. Re: What about hardware ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  How you want life to change, and how life does change, are in fact two entirely different things. The later is eveolution whereas the former is just intellectual fapping!
8. Re:What about hardware ? by HiThere · 2017-05-20 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, these guys are probably overthinking the point, but it's good work, regardless. But IIRC the amino acids needed to create something RNA like have been found in clouds of dust out in space. The sugars needed to bind them may be something else. But *I think* those may require a watery environment. And until there was something to eat them those could just pile up until they reached thermodynamic equilibrium.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
9. Re:What about hardware ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-21 22:01 · Score: 0
  
  think bowels of petunias, or rather, don't
  Funnily enough, bowels of petunias is all I can think of right now.
10. Re:What about hardware ? by RockDoctor · 2017-05-22 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  You don't get the bowls of petunias ("Oh no! Not Again") without the accompanying mounds of whale meat.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
11. Re:What about hardware ? by RockDoctor · 2017-05-22 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  Higher pressure and temperature require less catalysis. Temperature gradients abound. Worth a look at least.
  At the very least the Carnegie Lab in Washington are conducting regular experiments in this field. Possibly others, but I don't follow it closely either. I'd be pretty surprised if they were alone, but given that hint, you should be able to get the current researchers by reading the reference lists in a handful of their researcher's papers.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
12. Re:What about hardware ? by RockDoctor · 2017-05-22 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  But IIRC the amino acids needed to create something RNA like have been found in clouds of dust out in space.
  RNA (and DNA) do not contain amino acids. But yes, several amino acids have been found by spectroscopy of molecular clouds.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
13. Re:What about hardware ? by HiThere · 2017-05-22 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, my slip, you're right. But I believe they've also found nucleic acids.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Scientific theory on the origins of life on ear by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-19 23:59 · Score: 0

Look at various social mammals. Baboons are a good example of an animal creating social hierarchies which can consist of hundreds of individuals in a strict hierarchy. And their asses are colorful, in a patriotic way.
Synthetic Life by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-19 23:59 · Score: 0

Synthetic Life? And these escape from the lab and while we cook ourselves to death with global warming, they evolve. And in a few billion years they may achieve consciousness and be the dominate life form. But because of plate tectonics, there will be no traces of us and they'll have to figure out how they came to be on Earth.
They will rediscover the laws of science and create their own religion - or maybe not. They may be really rational. Never the less, scientific laws as we know them will be rediscovered and all the current Worlds religions will be destroyed by the Earths molten core.
Then the process starts all over again and by that time, the Sun will have gone all red super giant and the Earth will be just a hunk of rock.
1. Re: Synthetic Life by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  Don't forget the penis.
wrong journal in summary by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 00:33 · Score: 0

the work is published in Nature Communications, not Nature. Same publishing company, but not as prestigious.
Re:Still has problems by ColdWetDog · 2017-05-20 00:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

Success is often just a bunch of the right kind of failures strung together.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Still has problems by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 00:40 · Score: 0

Now even molecules have 'close cousins'...
The parts aren't the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 02:36 · Score: 0

The parts aren't the problem, the problem is understanding where the functional information came from that is found in DNA/RNA.
1. Re:The parts aren't the problem by HiThere · 2017-05-20 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  The functional information is easy. To summarize, start out by making a bunch of random junk and then filter for things that increase on their own faster than they fall apart. Do this for millions of years.
  For an explicit version of this check out evolutionary programming. This will show you some of the problems that need to be solved, and how simple most of the steps are. And do it in a way where you can examine every step of the process...if you've got enough patience and lifetime.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
2. Re:The parts aren't the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  The point my friend: millions of filtering years is insufficient. Billions is insufficient by factors of billions. All abiotic creation has on its side is microwave-frequency ( ~10^15) mono-X flipping ... just not fast enough to catch the poly-EXP(&X) increase of unstable states. N-dimensions only makes it worse (Pa)*P(b)*P(c)*..... Understand? There exists not a water-bath in the entire unknown universe big-enough to swallow that much entropy production.
3. Re:The parts aren't the problem by HiThere · 2017-05-21 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, sample simulations indicate that there is a superfluity of time for the process when particular limited characteristics are examined. And you've got to have those limits or current computers can't run the simulation (at least within budgets allocated for the experiment). This has, admittedly, only been done a few time, but every time it has been done the result has been that not only is there enough time, there's hugely more than is needed.
  Now there have only been a few of these simulations done, because most people don't believe that those who deny them are willing to look at the results. As a result this isn't a sound argument...but at least it's based on SOME evidence.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
4. Re:The parts aren't the problem by RockDoctor · 2017-05-22 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  The AC is just spouting from the Creationist Big Book of Unthinking Responses. It (AC, or CBBUR) has utterly failed to consider that there may have been a metabolism/ information system that preceded the appearance of the RNA system (itself probably pre-dating the DNA system).
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Will This Work In Bars? by FrankHaynes · 2017-05-20 02:45 · Score: 1

Because I've been trying to pick up women in bars to help me demonstrate the chemical reaction that sparks life. They just don't seem to grasp the significance of the scientific breakthrough that we could make together. I'd be willing to share the prize money 50/50, no problem.

--
slashdot: A failed experiment.
Not actually published in the journal Nature by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 04:15 · Score: 0

This article was published in Nature Communications, which is one of the many journals published by the Nature Publishing Group (NPG).
This is an important distinction, the journal Nature (published by the same NPG) has much higher standards for both the quality of the experiment and the relevance of the work than most of the other journals published by NPG. Take for example 'Nature Scientific Reports' which does not require that the work be novel in any way, only that it be scientifically valid. It is generally assumed that any work which was published in nature communications would have been rejected by both Nature and the nature field-specific journal (Nature Biology, Nature Physics, Nature Photonics, etc).
metamorphosis can happen without "life" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 04:39 · Score: 0

It was recent discovered that metamorphosis is happening in nature.
Can't find the link again.
Basically at the lowest level you have a bunch of lifeless cycles working together by chance, forming the basis of "life".
There are weird "rocks" that just keep growing.
1. Re:metamorphosis can happen without "life" by John+Bokma · 2017-05-20 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  Stromatolites?
  
  --
  
  Perl Programmer for hire
Re:Fallacy by spiritplumber · 2017-05-20 05:39 · Score: 1

Fair enough. Just don't expect your God to survive the event unscathed.

--
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
Re:Fallacy by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 06:58 · Score: 0

You don't have to look for the genesis of life or even universe to reject the God hypothesis with certainty. Just a quick reading on the history, archeology and anthropology of religions starting from the times before the cultures of Egypt and Greece is enough.
Deep into the chemical weeds by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 07:01 · Score: 0

The research article is here:https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15270 (may be paywalled?). With the general idea outlined in figure 2. As noted in the Sciencemag blurb, the presence of the 8-oxo group (a carbonyl, C=O) in the purines is a big problem. The author's team have been working in oxazolidinone chemistry for a while because they're easily formed from fairly simple "pre-biotic" organics (which *might* have been common on a pre-biotic Earth). (see Methods section, glycolaldehyde and potassium thiocyanate, followed by a strong acid (HCl) form the thiooxazole which is at the top of figure 1. in the paper. Bottom line: this could be a hint of the direction we need to explore (a single precursor for all of the pyrimidine and purine bases) or it might be a wild goose chase. The general idea is that the more we can vertically integrate the chemical synthesis of the various RNA nucleosides, the easier it 'should' be to explain how they all came together...
I've always wondered... by dbreeze · 2017-05-20 07:37 · Score: 1

... why did the random spontaneous generation of "life" apparently only occur 1 time in the history of the known universe. DNA analysis seems to indicate a common genesis for all known Terran life forms, why has there been no discovery of evidence for another bio-genesis event here on Earth? Is the known RNA/DNA based life the only possible form of life?

--
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
1. Re:I've always wondered... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  Because amino acids are the first complex molecules to form. Stars have the CNO cycle. That's a nuclear reaction that creates quantities of Carbon, Nitrogen and Oxygen due to a combination of fusion and fission. Fusion of Iron isn't possible. That provides the basic elements to make amino acids. Water (H2O) is the universal solvent. So all chemical reactions must occur where water is in a liquid state.
  To create molecule chains, you need atoms with three or four bonds; that's really reduces the choices down to Carbon and Silicon. There are probably many other constraints based on oxidisation, methylation, stability, and controlability of reactions; explosive chain-reactions aren't going to work out long-term.
2. Re:I've always wondered... by pauljlucas · 2017-05-22 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  Since it's a low probability, the mean time between occurrences would be large. Whichever happened first would have time to spread and out-compete any other that might have arisen.
  
  --
  If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
3. Re:I've always wondered... by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-05-22 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, the probability is so low in fact that it is just a total SWAG theory and has never actually occurred at all, either in the lab under artificial, ideal circumstances, or in the wild. The Evolutionist argument that it must have happened once because we exist is flawed in that it excludes all other explanations, and an extra-dimensional alien being creating life on earth is much more likely than an impossible event of spontaneous generation, which was disproven centuries ago. The Evolutionists just exclude this possibility (and all of the other evidence to support this) because they happen to not like the other consequences that go along with it. Evolutionists call Creationists all manner of names because the believe in this higher being, while Evolutionists believe that rocks and mineral water became humans... and every other creature on the planet. You tell me which is more implausible.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
4. Re:I've always wondered... by RockDoctor · 2017-05-22 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  ... why did the random spontaneous generation of "life" apparently only occur 1 time in the history of the known universe.
  We have only closely examined one planetary system (actually, the one we live in), which gives us a 100% hit rate for planetary systems being hosts to life.
  
  DNA analysis seems to indicate a common genesis for all known Terran life forms,
  It seems to, yes. But since we've only been looking for other systems for at best a couple of (scientist) generations, it remains possible that there are other life forms which we've not detected. Or maybe which we have detected, but not recognised or understood. The store rooms of museums are full of specimens which await detailed analysis.
  
  why has there been no discovery of evidence for another bio-genesis event here on Earth?
  Maybe there was only one biogenetic event. Maybe there were two, but in the 100 million years after the appearance of our DNA/ RNA, all of the evidence of the previous system was eaten, then everything buried for 35 time longer before we started to bang rocks together. As a geologist, I know of no law of nature that requires all organisms to leave fossil traces, or indeed, for all fossils to be found before being eroded away, or indeed, for fossils found by palaeontogists to be identified as something interesting before the rock is thrown away. When I went fossil hunting for mere billion-year old fossils, it took me a good half-hour to "get my eye in", and I'm a lot more experienced at this than most people.
  
  Is the known RNA/DNA based life the only possible form of life?
  It is the only form we know. But that doesn't mean that other forms are impossible, just that we don't know. Anyone who implies that we do know is either over-speaking the evidence, or being incautious with their phrasing (the latter does not yet carry the death penalty, though it might get buns thrown at you and a sharp intake of breath).
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Chuck Missler by dbreeze · 2017-05-20 08:31 · Score: 0

I'd like to see some of you try to refute Dr. Missler's observations and analysis... I've been reading and studying for 30 years and find his work revelatory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I'd LOVE to see some of you realize that there are things going on with our universe that science will just never explain. "The wisdom of men is foolishness to God, and the wisdom of God is foolishness to men."
Of course, this will be down-modded swiftly by the "Science is my God" types... they're usually not open to discussions counter to their world-view, and will stop others from considering such evidence.
My God says "Come, let us reason together..." I like His ways....

--
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
1. Re:Chuck Missler by indi0144 · 2017-05-20 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  Ive come to the conclusion that the late preaching on /. Is just the response from an underrepresented community in fear of H1B visa workers, community who in the midst of the cognitive dissonance and their political fuck ups, decide to turn into God and preaching in order to be more like those Indian guys that believe such funky shit, because maybe thats their secret.
  
  That you cash a check made entirely out of science and logic work is where we already won our argument, down voting is just taking out of sight the shameless freeloading that you and your kind represent. Wanna impress people with your faith? Leave fucking everything to the poor and go preach in Africa, aint nobody hearing faith preaching from a fucking neckbeard that has prolly never ever gone to bed hungry in his life.
2. Re:Chuck Missler by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-05-22 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  My God is rational and logical. (Where do you think logic and mathematics comes from in the first place? It is inherent to the existence of the universe.) He created a universe filled with laws that can be observed and understood, both physical laws and moral laws (where do those laws come from, by the way, if there is no Creator?). If you violate either, there are consequences, whether you like it or not. That is the harmony of my worldview as an applied scientist. You seem to harbor a false sense of moral superiority and at the same time an intense intolerance to those of a different worldview about whom you make many intolerant and bigoted assumptions https://www.merriam-webster.co... . You might want to take a minute and think about why you hate Christians, and what that means about you and your worldview.
  I am happy to discuss philosophy or science with anyone who is interested, but name calling obscenity laced irrational tirades are hardly productive.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Ha Ha Ha, not even close by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 15:45 · Score: 0

All this demonstrates is that an intelligent designer could possibly design life using building blocks already present on early Earth or that he/she/it created on early Earth.
Creationists will only worry about this when:
1. It is demostrated that all these components either always existed or could come into existsence on their own (the scientific possibility)
2. It is proven that all these components DID come together on their own (the historical certainty it happened - because possible things are not always what happens).
3. It is proven that these components can put themselves together on their own and for no reason (again the scientific possibility)
4. It is proven that these components DID come together on their own (again, the historical proof that this possibility is what actually happened)
5. It is proven that, after these primitive components come into existence on their own and then get put together exactly right, they can actually lead to LIFE (not just presumed chemical "building blocks" of life).
6.It is proven that these components DID put get self-assembled exactly right and DID create LIFE (not just chemicals found in living things but LIFE ITSELF).
This will NEVER happen, because ANY experiment setup by human beings (or computers designed by human beings) is simply a direct (or indirect) experiment in intelligent design, where the person setting up the experiment is the designer. For it not to be an experiment in intelligent design (or actual "creationism" for that matter) the experiment would have to design itself, set itself up, and conduct itself, while observing itself (Heisenberg applies here). Random molecules will randomly and spontaneously assemble themselves into a fully-functional X-Wing fighter in my driveway before this happens.
I should not have to explain this to any serious person, but it seems SOMEBODY has to stand up for ACTUAL science, logic, and reason from time to time.
1. Re: Ha Ha Ha, not even close by backslashdot · 2017-05-20 17:41 · Score: 1
  
  I think by creationist, we mean young earth creationist. A creationist who believes God set up the Big Bang and it's various parameters is not mentally ill. A creationist who thinks the earth is in the range of 10,000 years old is bona fide mentally ill.
let's see now... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-20 15:56 · Score: 0

option A: Things fall down because a mysterious invisible force draws masses together in proportion to the sum of their masses and inversely the square of the distance between them.
option B: Things fall down because "down is where they belong".
For pre-20th century man, option B is clearly the winner by Occam...
It's a RAZOR people! It's a simple TOOL to assist in clear thinking, but it's NOT a LAW, nor a PRINCIPLE, etc. It's only a little more reliable than "alway cut the red wire first"
Hawking is no diety, he's not even an Einstein. Some of his ideas are as bannanas as stuff spouted by 8-year-olds but because he is severely disabled and was once right about ONE idea (Hawking radiation) nobody is allowed to question ANY lunacy he spouts. In the era of snowflakes, questioning Hawking will get you banished for "hate" towards the disabled (oops, the "less abled")
Oh, and there was no need for the new King Arthur movie, but some damned fools made it anyway - so much for the theory that something that is not necessary can be presumed to not exist (another clearly anti-science position embraced by the Hawing types, right up there with the garbage claim that "you cannot prove a negative", which is so bogus it only fools morons)
1. Re:let's see now... by mfnickster · 2017-05-20 16:01 · Score: 1
  
  Hawking is no diety, he's not even an Einstein. Some of his ideas are as bannanas as stuff spouted by 8-year-olds but because he is severely disabled and was once right about ONE idea (Hawking radiation) nobody is allowed to question ANY lunacy he spouts. In the era of snowflakes, questioning Hawking will get you banished for "hate" towards the disabled (oops, the "less abled")
  
  --
  "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
2. Re:let's see now... by mfnickster · 2017-05-20 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  Ack. Hit "submit" when I meant to hit "preview." Stupid mobile site... :-P
  Anyway, that's "differently abled," you infrasensitive clod!
  
  --
  "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
3. Re:let's see now... by RockDoctor · 2017-05-22 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  Serious professional physicists have publicly disagreed with Hawking - and Hawking has admitted to them being right (I'm thinking of the case a couple of years ago where he settled a bet about information destruction in black holes with an encyclopedia of some sort ; I forget his challenger's name), without the "h8r" card being played.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
yup by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-21 00:27 · Score: 0

Well, it's about time.