RosettaStoned
Vital Football Legend
You misunderstanding of science is not disproof of science.
I don't even know where to begin with this, it's astounding.
I don't even know where to begin with this, it's astounding.
HeathfieldRoad1874
Miserable Sod
RNA has been created in a Lab, showing that it can come about by chance.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
HeathfieldRoad1874
Miserable Sod
You find it astounding, I find it deeply worrying. If I knew that little about a subject, I would keep quiet!!!!
RosettaStoned
Vital Football Legend
Yeah, and what they did next was completely throw out all of Darwins work, announce him as a charlatan and he hasnt been heard of since.
Dear me, have a word someone.
G
Guest
Guest
Which proves it was designed(by the scientists), unless it came by chance?
RosettaStoned
Vital Football Legend
Oh boy
:23:
:23:
HeathfieldRoad1874
Miserable Sod
You didn't read the article then? At least I have the decency to read, and try and understand the Bible.
G
Guest
Guest
Joyce; “The most reasonable assumption is that life did not start with RNA … . The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of experimental data.”
Joyce and Lincoln, started off with a with a fairly long RNA molecule which already shows unjustified interference from an intelligent investigator.
In fact, not even the building blocks, ribonucleotides, appear in such experiments, and they do not spontaneously form RNA. In fact, there are numerous chemical difficulties with obtaining RNA by blind undirected chemistry(the only sort allowed on the hypothetical primordial earth).
Joyce and Lincoln, started off with a with a fairly long RNA molecule which already shows unjustified interference from an intelligent investigator.
In fact, not even the building blocks, ribonucleotides, appear in such experiments, and they do not spontaneously form RNA. In fact, there are numerous chemical difficulties with obtaining RNA by blind undirected chemistry(the only sort allowed on the hypothetical primordial earth).
RosettaStoned
Vital Football Legend
Heath, just a quick reality check here, (I dont want to stick my nose in where its not required/wanted)
You're discussing the intimate details of microbiology with a man who thinks the planet is less that 10,000 years old.
Just something to think about.
Anyway, as you were.....
You're discussing the intimate details of microbiology with a man who thinks the planet is less that 10,000 years old.
Just something to think about.
Anyway, as you were.....
HeathfieldRoad1874
Miserable Sod
So, still not read the article then. You spent your time on Google looking for evidence against RNA formation, instead?
I think the last paragraph says it all.
“Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry,” said Sutherland. “They’re doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complicated.”
I think the last paragraph says it all.
“Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry,” said Sutherland. “They’re doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complicated.”
HeathfieldRoad1874
Miserable Sod
I know, I know. It's not necessarily for him. It's to show others he is wrong, so they don't make the same mistakes. We can't have Clive walking away feeling that the Bible knows more than Science, can we!!!! All it takes is for us to keep quiet for these ideas to take grip again. We're past the Dark Ages now, I don't really want them to return!!
G
Guest
Guest
Read the original paper on the experiment. Not the "story" in wired magazine!
The paper didn’t demonstrate replication but "ligation", of joining two small RNA pieces.
So this research already assumed not just one but three RNA strands. For this to be relevant to chemical evolution, the two pieces just by chance had to have pretty close to the complementary base pairs of the first piece, natural selection could not be invoked before reproduction.
HeathfieldRoad1874
Miserable Sod
You're talking about Joyce and Lincoln's research at the Scripps Research Institute, which does indeed deal with the joining, expansion and replication of RNA (which, by the way disproves your earlier statement that genes were static, and could not be enlarged easily, but lets skip over that, for now).
I am referring to Sutherlands research, which creates RNA from basic Chemical elements, all of which were present in the Early Earth.
I am referring to Sutherlands research, which creates RNA from basic Chemical elements, all of which were present in the Early Earth.
Villa_Grizzly
Vital Squad Member
I often like to ponder on the spatio-temporal phenomenon of the evolving universe and the existential reality of existence itself, and then think in teleological and cosmological terms about first cause and creation points. In terms of metaphysics and science, its incredibly fascinating.
When we contemplate the possible existence of a God this is far more pertinent or relevant than the evolutionary development of irradiated and heated primordial matter and the 'birth' of single cell and cell splitting organisms, as if biochemical evolution of cells, and indeed evolution as a concept itself, excludes the notion of creation in the phenomenal universe as a whole. Both are mutually compatible, as though Either\Or was the only logical choice and not both - an illogical and non-deductive position.
On a wider level, I do find the whole creationist\evolution debate quite puerile, competitive and limited. It feels to be more about ideology than reason, whether that be theological or atheist dogma. The reality for me is that our understanding of theology is often extremely limited outside of academic and lay education, as is our understanding of science as a phenomenal enterprise.
When we contemplate the possible existence of a God this is far more pertinent or relevant than the evolutionary development of irradiated and heated primordial matter and the 'birth' of single cell and cell splitting organisms, as if biochemical evolution of cells, and indeed evolution as a concept itself, excludes the notion of creation in the phenomenal universe as a whole. Both are mutually compatible, as though Either\Or was the only logical choice and not both - an illogical and non-deductive position.
On a wider level, I do find the whole creationist\evolution debate quite puerile, competitive and limited. It feels to be more about ideology than reason, whether that be theological or atheist dogma. The reality for me is that our understanding of theology is often extremely limited outside of academic and lay education, as is our understanding of science as a phenomenal enterprise.
HeathfieldRoad1874
Miserable Sod
We're not discussing the existence of a Creator, tat is a whole different subject.
We are discussing the belief that the Bible is a true, factual record of our planets history. What are your views on that, Grizzly? Do you think our Planet is 10,000 years old, or 4.5bn?
We are discussing the belief that the Bible is a true, factual record of our planets history. What are your views on that, Grizzly? Do you think our Planet is 10,000 years old, or 4.5bn?
RosettaStoned
Vital Football Legend
I think the more pertinent question here that hasn't yet been posed is, rather than attempting to debunk the scientific theory/fact with exceptionally poor pseudoscience and waffle, how about Green Tea present his view and we can dismantle it bit by bit in the same way he is attempting to do.
Its very simple to argue your case by just attempting to bring down stated facts with 'thats not true' or 'that isnt a proven fact' without actually presenting a rational argument yourself, backed up with evidence, or even basic primary school biology.
This planet is full of these people who have plenty to say about knocking down a system, but have no actual solutions of ideas themselves....
....although in this case its probably because the originator of the criticism is bat shit crazy.
Anyway, over to you: Ill get you started,
The planet came into existence, created by god in 6 days.....
Its very simple to argue your case by just attempting to bring down stated facts with 'thats not true' or 'that isnt a proven fact' without actually presenting a rational argument yourself, backed up with evidence, or even basic primary school biology.
This planet is full of these people who have plenty to say about knocking down a system, but have no actual solutions of ideas themselves....
....although in this case its probably because the originator of the criticism is bat shit crazy.
Anyway, over to you: Ill get you started,
The planet came into existence, created by god in 6 days.....
Villa_Grizzly
Vital Squad Member
1. I do not hold to a 'young earth theory.' A ridiculous position, completely unsupportable in either theological or scientific terms.
2. The Bible is a theological work that pertains to aspects of human social history and the nature and reality of human existential existence.
It is not:
a) a factual scientific record of earth's geology or its physical evolution.
b) A 'record.'
That is not the purpose of Judaic or Christian scripture. To see the bible in such ways, or to denounce it as a 'record' is to misunderstand biblical theology IMHO
:14:
HeathfieldRoad1874
Miserable Sod
Cheers Grizzly. Much as I see it myself. Although not Religious, I find it, and the Koran, fascinating. That said, I find all History fascinating, and that is how I catagorise these religious works.
