-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Let there be Life! Scientists create RNA from base elements.
- Thread starter "God's Beard!"
- Start date
- Status
a) It's not really 'intelligent' to make cells that destroy the organism they are a part of
b) Resistance to antibiotics/retrovirals and random mutations in strains that give them advantages in spreading wider and faster are evidence for evolution.
I've yet to see an ID argument against those points that doesn't just wave them away.
b) Resistance to antibiotics/retrovirals and random mutations in strains that give them advantages in spreading wider and faster are evidence for evolution.
I've yet to see an ID argument against those points that doesn't just wave them away.
Dabookerman
Member
KHarvey16 said:
I liked this video. He's enjoyable to watch.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
That's the kind of logic that the IDers use to reduce evolution to a priori investments. But logic is all about using the evidence to deduce the best possible explanation. When we see clear progressions in the DNA based on descent, then evolution has explanatory power. For instance, one can easily see that a whale is a mammal and must have descended from other mammals if evolution is to be true. And when we actually look at the whale genome, we see clear examples of land-based descent.Bulla564 said:
Evolution is perfectly falsifiable because it has to answer to these questions. What does ID have to answer to? No matter what the evidence is, it's always, "God did it." Well God could do anything. He could have even made the entire concept of mutations outright impossible, thereby invalidating the theory of evolution. Evolution has to be in line with that evidence. Creationism does not. What's the point of an animal? Can anyone guess the mind of God? He operates with or without any evidence we see. Evolution, on the other hand, explains animals as necessary for our being. So it could have been falsified a thousand times over by now, but it hasn't, and that makes it a strong theory.
Even when we see the bizarre ways in which creatures have been constituted, both on a genetic level and phenotype level, it attests to evolution's power, for it can be capricious and strange. A perfect designer should be perfectly efficient. But there are so many differences from one genome to the next that seem utterly useless, explained by massive changes over long tracts of time.
I don't believe you answered my irreducible complexity post from the last thread either.
EDIT: Someone should test Charlie Weis for evidence of land-based descent.
Agent Ghost
aka MAJIKdR46oN
The Theory of Evolution Made Easy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4
Even Bull can understand this.....maybe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4
Even Bull can understand this.....maybe.
Here's my obligatory "I'm a Christian and I don't find any of this faithshattering" post that happens in literally every science thread in this forum.
Bulla, you're an idiot.
EDIT: There's no way of defending your point of view short of huge assumptions, aka leaps of faith that have no basis except to defend some sort of intelligent design.
Obviously this isn't man creating life, but the fact that we can see how some of the complex molecules that lead to life came to be organically is fascinating.
If anything, for me, it lends support to the idea that God's mechanisms, if not perfect in the "perfect consequence" sense, at least don't rely on some sort of archaic magical mechanisms to manifest.
Bulla, you're an idiot.
EDIT: There's no way of defending your point of view short of huge assumptions, aka leaps of faith that have no basis except to defend some sort of intelligent design.
Obviously this isn't man creating life, but the fact that we can see how some of the complex molecules that lead to life came to be organically is fascinating.
If anything, for me, it lends support to the idea that God's mechanisms, if not perfect in the "perfect consequence" sense, at least don't rely on some sort of archaic magical mechanisms to manifest.
TheCardPlayer
Likes to have "friends" around to "play cards" with
Bulla564 said:
:lol
Bulla564 said:
:lol :lol
Bulla564 said:
:lol :lol :lol
Bulla564 said:
:lol :lol :lol :lol
Bulla564 said:
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
There are no words. No words that can convey how fucking retarded you are. No words. I am an atheist and despite my criticisms of religion, there are lots of intelligent and articulate people of faith on this forum and while I shall never agree with them, I will at least try to respect their opinion in my own way. And by that, I mean that while I laugh at them, I truly do see what they mean and respect that. I like to argue for the sake of arguing really. The fact that you made me admit that is a testament to your suckage and uselessness.Bulla564 said:
You are the living definition of ''fucktarded imbecile''. I do not think you are a troll unfortunately. You would have dropped the act a while ago. My, my, what a strange creature you are. I always call people dumb on the Internet and insult their education, mainly out of spite and contempt. But I rarely mean it. You however, should know that when I say that you are an incompetent fool with an absolute lack of anything resembling logic, it's not my Internet character speaking. It's me telling you to wake the fuck up and get a primary school diploma. I think the NCLB act was passed just for you.
As much as I disagree with the guy and think he's an ass, that kind of post is more likely to strengthen him then otherwise.TheCardPlayer said:
You're not refuting his points, which he may not respond to but it may get into him slightly, you're just tossing personal insults like some kid on a playground.
Quite a cool discovery. I was discussing with an atheist friend of mine about the issue of the purpouse of the universe or lack of thereof. I said that it is quite amazing how inanimated matter forms organic structures even if organic constucts are more unstable, and he pointed me out that there is no proof of that obbeying any kind of law or general tendency in the Universe, since a) we werent able to find life in any other planet so we dont know how common it is and b) it wasn't able to be replicated into a controlled experiment, life might have been just a cosmic improbability rather than a natural consequence. Well, well, look what we have here 
(And no, I am not a creationist, not belive in intelligent design or divine intervention, but I rather that God created a set of natural rules and ran with it, a la masonic architect).
(And no, I am not a creationist, not belive in intelligent design or divine intervention, but I rather that God created a set of natural rules and ran with it, a la masonic architect).â Narayan
Member
It's intelligunt desine, my friend. Intelligunt desine.Hitokage said:Why wait?
Which brings me to another point, people who advocate intelligent design rarely have even a basic grasp on what kinds of plants and animals there are in the world outside of what you might find in a zoo or an A to Z book. It's a belief that thrives in ignorance.
!KimiSan said:
BROTHER!
GoutPatrol
Forgotten in his cell
Excellent topic GAF. I wish I was awake last night so I could make a joke about something a few pages back, but otherwise great.
"God's Beard!"
Member
I'm not as well versed as you guys, so here's a video of a monkey playing pac man. I don't know if it proves evolution or not, but I think it's pretty compelling.
Instigator
Banned
If there are magical barriers that prevent mutations to accumulate up to a certain point, that ought to be a whole lot easier to demonstrably prove in a lab than, say, breed a animal, generations after generations, until it become a new species.
The former should happen in a much, much shorter timeframe than the latter. That is, if we take Bulla's arguments seriously.
The former should happen in a much, much shorter timeframe than the latter. That is, if we take Bulla's arguments seriously.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Bulla564 said:
:lol are you kidding me? ! you are a goddam moron. there have been plenty of facts shown thoughout all the threads you shitted up.. and you want more? you have yet to provide any tangible fact other than your opinion of, 'i disagree' .. everything i listed about mitochondria IS A FACT linking it to its prokaryotic roots.. where are these other self-sufficient vital structures you talk about?
the burden of proof is on yourself.. people have given you enough facts, enough studies to back up what they have been saying.. you cant just use your own thoughts to disprove them without anything tangible to back them up. you are no where near as smart as you think you are. its hilarious to see you put yourself up on some sort of pedestal when you seem to have major issues understanding simple concepts. :lol
Count Dookkake
Member
TheExodu5 said:
:lol
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Nocebo said:
the only point he has made is that its a waste of time to study evolution.. anything else he has said is just, 'i disagree' HE HAS MADE NO POINTS AND HAS NOT BACKED UP ANY OF HIS 'ASSUMPTIONS'
its completely irritating and incredibly sad to see that people like him actually exist.. im not even an atheist.. i believe in god :lol the guy is just being willfully ignorant..
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
Haven't we already shown that there was NO "warm little pond" in early earth? In other words, that the components present were not what Darwin would've expected and weren't even what Miller was using in his famous experiment?
Bulla564 said:
You dont even know enough about the supporting evidence for evolution to recognize what i was getting at when i said Endogenous retroviruses....
we know what ERV's are, what they can cause when they are integrated etc. That is beyond the point and irrelevant to there use in supporting evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
Phew... I wake up and I'm glad to see that some of you have already gone through your daily ad hominem dribble to make yourselves believe you are in some sort of position of authority.
a) whether it be through carcinogens, or by genetic accidents (mutations), organisms in fact, or not perfectly immune. Who knows what the world would be like if everything was perfectly immune.
b) Let's use an analogy: you have an antibody, which is a cube with a square cut in the middle. Then you have a virus in the shape of a square, which perfectly fits the antibody in order to attack it. All of a sudden, a mutation causes the virus to become round, so the antibody no longer works to hold the virus in. The virus has changed, yet this fact has NOTHING to do with the theory of virus of bacteria EVER becoming anything other than that: virus and bacteria.
A shared chromosome between chimps and humans... 98% similarity... yadda yadda yadda. We also share 88% DNA similarity with rats, and 60% with chickens. It's no surprise that the genes are similar, purely based on functions and similar phenotypes. It takes an equal leap of faith to say that this is due to common ancestry, and not common design.
RandomVince said:
a) whether it be through carcinogens, or by genetic accidents (mutations), organisms in fact, or not perfectly immune. Who knows what the world would be like if everything was perfectly immune.
b) Let's use an analogy: you have an antibody, which is a cube with a square cut in the middle. Then you have a virus in the shape of a square, which perfectly fits the antibody in order to attack it. All of a sudden, a mutation causes the virus to become round, so the antibody no longer works to hold the virus in. The virus has changed, yet this fact has NOTHING to do with the theory of virus of bacteria EVER becoming anything other than that: virus and bacteria.
A shared chromosome between chimps and humans... 98% similarity... yadda yadda yadda. We also share 88% DNA similarity with rats, and 60% with chickens. It's no surprise that the genes are similar, purely based on functions and similar phenotypes. It takes an equal leap of faith to say that this is due to common ancestry, and not common design.
Oh look... a prediction from Intelligent Design is true:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18535086
Hmmmm....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18535086
Hmmmm....
TheRagnCajun
Member
A very cool scientific achievment, but...
Gimme a call when a hypothetical scenario becomes a probable scenario.
Mistouze said:
Gimme a call when a hypothetical scenario becomes a probable scenario.
TheRagnCajun
Member
Desperado said:
They do in order for me to buy into them. = /
Ela Hadrun
Probably plays more games than you
unifin said:
YES
Seriously I just don't get it. I don't understand the ID position. I understand, if disagree with, why creationists have the position they have, but if you've acknowledged that Genesis is not literal then I don't see why God can't just set a Big Bang in motion with perfect knowledge of its consequences. Maybe inspire a dinosaur or two.
Well, these ideas are all still very young. No one fights heliocentrism or the round earth anymore. It was what, two hundred years ago that people first realized that there were animals that had gone extinct? If only we had dug those guys up BEFORE the industrial revolution....
Anyway this RNA shit is still blowing my mind. I still think it's totally insane that it assembled itself. They didn't have to stir their vat for 10,000 years or anything.
Order proceeds from chaos. HOW COOL IS THAT. How often does that happen jesus. Certainly it doesn't happen on NeoGaf lol
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Radiation really is the love that is Jesus
Ela Hadrun said:
But then you have the natural laws to contend with, and our knowledge of them don't make common ancestry all that plausible (outside of being the only natural unguided process they can come up with).
Be VERY careful with that. Order arrived from chaos through SPECIFIC guidance from scientists. Your are dealing with one of the surest laws of nature, thermodynamics.
TheRagnCajun
Member
Bulla564 said:
A system can gain 'order' if its not a closed system. but I know where you're going with that. Its the oldest argument used by creationists. The debate extends way beyond that which anyone of GAF is capable of discussing.
Instigator
Banned
Bulla564 said:
The balance is very easy to explain, we have countless past scenarios, and can be witnessed, first hand, when an ecosystem is disrupted by one agent. If you have, say, an invasive species introduced by accident, something much more dramatic than any random mutation any native animal could plausibly get, there's a chain events that will usually happen, sometimes leading to whole exctinctions. However, after a while, the ecosystem will be poorer, but a new balance will be reached (unless disrupted again).
They simulated conditions present billions of years ago.Bulla564 said:
Also how come we have so many transitional fossils? It's ridiculous to think some people can't see the evidence infront of their face.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3SAGDZXLxI&feature=related
I find it more plausible that life can adapt to it's surroundings than something designing creatures to work in specific surrounding. He would have to update the models every X years. Also the earth got gradually populated with different kinds of animal species over millions of years. The key word here is gradually. While pretty much all creation fables claim everything was put on earth basically in an instant.
If you're not basing your God on the word of God itself then what are you basing it on? You're just making stuff up and mangling God to fit present day knowledge, this is a practice that doesn't make sense.
There is no evidence to suggest intelligence being involved. It cannot be tested. Therefore, at this point of the debate, it has no validity and should not even be discussed as a possibility. When you find evidence of some form of intelligent intervention, bring it up. Until then, keep hugging the dinosaur.
Instigator said:If there are magical barriers that prevent mutations to accumulate up to a certain point, that ought to be a whole lot easier to demonstrably prove in a lab than, say, breed a animal, generations after generations, until it become a new species.
The former should happen in a much, much shorter timeframe than the latter. That is, if we take Bulla's arguments seriously.
no magical barrier found, but a beneficial random mutation was.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
wayward archer
Member
Bulla564 said:
Who says humanity or life is order at all? Maybe we aren't the end result of some master plan, but just the result of natural forces at work. Any mathematician will tell you that there are plenty of instances where chaotic systems can form what seem to be patterns. There is nothing that indicates that we are the result of 'order' being applied to the system other than the need for religious apologetics to explain "Let us make man in our image".
My question to any IDer in general: If you believe God can reach down from the sky and gently push the molecules into place why is it so hard to believe that he is incapable of establishing a simple set of natural laws that would eventually result in our creation through 'natural' processes? This still fulfills the requirements of him creating us but not in the hands on approach that ID seems to require (the whole "There's NO WAY this eyeball could have formed had an intelligent creator not hand crafted it himself all at once!" stance).
Instigator
Banned
Bulla564 said:
Yes and no. Balance (or order) appear to apply to non-living things as well. No matter how you mess up a system of non-living objects, eventually, order will appear. Enter chaos theory.
So, in the view of science, whether there was an intricate balance beforehand or not is irrelevant. Order out of chaos seems to be a fundamental physics principle. And this is something observable, right now, rather than an unprovable assumption that long ago a creator established one particular balance.
- Status