Let there be Life! Scientists create RNA from base elements.

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheExodu5 said:
Since when did religion say anything about the Earth being the center of the world? Maybe religious people assumed it, but that is in no way, shape, or form, in the Bible, the Torah, or the Qu'ran.
To go against the Catholic Church and it's infallible Pope at the time ... it may as well have been written in stone.
 
Creationists will dismiss this as something along the lines of:

"Oh yeah? Well, you f*ckers didn't see it when the scientists when home at night and Jesus slipped into their lab and added a few bits of magic pixie dust to help them out. So there! SCIENCE BE DAMNED!"
 
Nocebo said:
They simulated conditions present billions of years ago.

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
Interpretation of ape bones, teeth, fragments, in order to fit a plausible story, is an exercise in creativity, and not science. Evidence is disregarded when it doesn't fit, or shoved to the side. That's not science.

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.
But species DO have some degree of flexibility, as I have said before. Science shows that they are just not flexible enough to become completely different yet viable creatures.

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.
I don't use the Bible to give attributes to God in arguing for intelligence and purpose in design.

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.
While we can infer design from empirical observation, I focus on why evolution is wrong.

no magical barrier found, but a beneficial random mutation was.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...n-the-lab.html
Bleh... the bacteria's ability to digest citrate was almost there FROM THE BEGINNING, but it was unable to transport citrate under oxic conditions. A small change that happened after 31,500 generations (how many years is that in human generations?) lead to the digestion of this nutrient. Congrats... you just showed the disgustingly low probability of such a minuscule change happening in the world, and how difficult it is to imagine the diversity of life explained through this.

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.
Patterns are not the same as interrelated systems that work together as a whole.

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".
There is everything to indicate that systems are the result of order and purposeful design being applied. You can infer that it applies to the most complex and efficient systems ever conceived: living organisms.

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?
Because we use natural laws to disprove evolution.
 
TheExodu5 said:
Since when did religion say anything about the Earth being the center of the world? Maybe religious people assumed it, but that is in no way, shape, or form, in the Bible, the Torah, or the Qu'ran.
Isn't geocentricity core to most religions, those three especially? The emphasis on Earth and its creation, of prophecy and apocalypse, all assume the universe was made for and around the Earth. They pay no mind to the world beyond man.

There are no passages that implicitly state Earth being the center of the world(aside from a few passages implying it, ie: God stopping the sun for Joshua to hunt at night), but from a historical standpoint, that is how the books were written. They didn't know any better.

Nocebo said:
Also how come we have so many transitional fossils?
According to creationists, there are no transitional fossils. I forgot who said this, but if a creationist posits a gap between species, when you place a transitional fossil in between, he will just tell you there are 2 new gaps to fill. :p
 
wayward archer said:
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?
So humanity is basically the end result of some sort of elaborate celestial domino-toppling exercise?

I find that... rather flattering, actually.
 
Bulla564 said:
Interpretation of ape bones, teeth, fragments, in order to fit a plausible story, is an exercise in creativity, and not science. Evidence is disregarded when it doesn't fit, or shoved to the side. That's not science.



But species DO have some degree of flexibility, as I have said before. Science shows that they are just not flexible enough to become completely different yet viable creatures.



I don't use the Bible to give attributes to God in arguing for intelligence and purpose in design.



While we can infer design from empirical observation, I focus on why evolution is wrong.



Bleh... the bacteria's ability to digest citrate was almost there FROM THE BEGINNING, but it was unable to transport citrate under oxic conditions. A small change that happened after 31,500 generations (how many years is that in human generations?) lead to the digestion of this nutrient. Congrats... you just showed the disgustingly low probability of such a minuscule change happening in the world, and how difficult it is to imagine the diversity of life explained through this.



Patterns are not the same as interrelated systems that work together as a whole.



There is everything to indicate that systems are the result of order and purposeful design being applied. You can infer that it applies to the most complex and efficient systems ever conceived: living organisms.



Because we use natural laws to disprove evolution.
My argument is that life is so complex, it COULDN'T have been intelligently designed.
 
mrkgoo said:
My argument is that life is so complex, it COULDN'T have been intelligently designed.
I know... it would have been smarter to design blobs of mass that live harmoniously with each other, immune to diseases and death. But who are we to question design choices...
 
Bulla564 said:
I know... it would have been smarter to design blobs of mass that live harmoniously with each other, immune to diseases and death. But who are we to question design choices...
The funny thing about your sad attempts to pick holes in evolution, is that in no way would even a complete debunking of evolution give credibility to Creationism.
 
Bulla564 said:
Interpretation of ape bones, teeth, fragments, in order to fit a plausible story, is an exercise in creativity, and not science. Evidence is disregarded when it doesn't fit, or shoved to the side. That's not science.
Are you from 150 years ago? It's not just bone fragments we're looking at. You have to look at the complete picture all of the various pieces of evidence paint.
What evidence has been disregarded and shoved to the side?

But species DO have some degree of flexibility, as I have said before. Science shows that they are just not flexible enough to become completely different yet viable creatures.
That's not what science shows.

I don't use the Bible to give attributes to God in arguing for intelligence and purpose in design.
Then where did your idea of a God come from if it wasn't from any religious sources? I find that hard to believe. Sounds like you're into "exercises in creativity" at any rate. Since nothing you have claimed is based on tested and predictable facts, rather it is based on direct observations of things around you. Basically it's not backed with a whole lot of data.

While we can infer design from empirical observation.
Example?

Bleh... the bacteria's ability to digest citrate was almost there FROM THE BEGINNING, but it was unable to transport citrate under oxic conditions. A small change that happened after 31,500 generations (how many years is that in human generations?) lead to the digestion of this nutrient. Congrats... you just showed the disgustingly low probability of such a minuscule change happening in the world, and how difficult it is to imagine the diversity of life explained through this.
The probability isn't as low as you're making it out to be. It's a pretty significant change, yet you brush it aside like it's nothing because it doesn't fit your intelligent design idea?

What came first? The earth or us? What about the fact that species appeared gradually on earth and not all at once? Why did certain species disappear? Why are there so many species that have so much in common? Can intelligent design explain these things?
 
Bulla564 said:
I know... it would have been smarter to design blobs of mass that live harmoniously with each other, immune to diseases and death. But who are we to question design choices...
There was a miscommunication with the design documents.
 
Bulla564 said:
I know... it would have been smarter to design blobs of mass that live harmoniously with each other, immune to diseases and death. But who are we to question design choices...
I know huh. Yep you always question evolution even when you lack a true understanding of the thing you are trying to debunk. But never should we question the concept of a designer or ID.
 
Jonm1010 said:
The funny thing about your sad attempts to pick holes in evolution, is that in no way would even a complete debunking of evolution give credibility to Creationism.
You guys won't change your minds no matter how much evolution is debunked. It's just fun to argue.

Are you from 150 years ago? It's not just bone fragments we're looking at. You have to look at the complete picture all of the various pieces of evidence paint.
What evidence has been disregarded and shoved to the side?
Mismatching fossils from mismatching dates are not uncommon anomalies in the fossil record. The complete picture is a nice set of extinct apes. To infer that they all share common ancestry is an unfalsifiable assumption.

That's not what science shows.
Show me an instance of scientific experimentation leading to completely different yet viable creatures (and no, two mice that can no longer reproduce don't count). Science has shown this is not possible.

Since nothing you have claimed is based on tested and predictable facts, rather it is based on direct observations of things around you. Basically it's not backed with a whole lot of data.
The similarities with macroevolutionary tales is striking. Yet, I'm not the one in denial about this.

Quote:
While we can infer design from empirical observation.
Example?
Your car.

The probability isn't as low as you're making it out to be. It's a pretty significant change, yet you brush it aside like it's nothing because it doesn't fit your intelligent design idea?
A half-capable process becoming fully capable is NOT a big leap. What's 31,500 e-coli generations? 600,000 human years, only to improve the function of something? I wonder how long it took to assemble our entire digestive system...

What came first? The earth or us? What about the fact that species appeared gradually on earth and not all at once? Why did certain species disappear? Why are there so many species that have so much in common? Can intelligent design explain these things?
Actually a crap ton of species appear all at once at different intervals... evolutionists, of course, have to explain this away. Species can become extinct by many factors. Similarities don't infer common descent any more than common functionality. Yes, ID can explain these things and many others.
 
Bulla564 said:
LOL another needless assumption is to say that enzymes evolved from a common ancestor. One doesn't even need to assume that to study their function, structure, etc.
As a structural biologist, I respectfully disagree.
 

VanMardigan

has calmed down a bit.
DiatribeEQ said:
Creationists will dismiss this as something along the lines of:

"Oh yeah? Well, you f*ckers didn't see it when the scientists when home at night and Jesus slipped into their lab and added a few bits of magic pixie dust to help them out. So there! SCIENCE BE DAMNED!"
If anything, it's the scientists sprinkling the pixie dust by stacking the environment to get the results they want, which is fine for the purposes of this experiment. I don't want to take anything away from what this means, but I think you're actually giving this more credit than even the scientists are implying.

This could be the Miller experiment all over again, with both extremes making assumptions that didn't match what actually happened.
 
Bulla564 said:
You guys won't change your minds no matter how much evolution is debunked. It's just fun to argue.
Change our mind to what? An alternative that has absolutely no evidence scientifically to support it?

What i find amazing about you is you are obviously spending so much time trying to find holes in evolution yet just accept a far less plausible theory that has absolutely no scientific backing to be a viable alternative. Either your willfully dishonest or you somehow think that if evolution is debunked the default explanation has to be the Christian biblical account of creation. And in both those cases it makes you look silly.
 
Bulla564 said:
Patterns are not the same as interrelated systems that work together as a whole.
No they are not, and I never implied that they were the same.

There is everything to indicate that systems are the result of order and purposeful design being applied. You can infer that it applies to the most complex and efficient systems ever conceived: living organisms.
Again I say, what we interpret as 'order' can emerge from a chaotic system. You can find plenty of instances of this in mathematics, chemistry, and physics.



Because we use natural laws to disprove evolution.
Except that we haven't, but whatever, since you will never accept this let's change the subject a bit: The stance of the IDer is that god HAD TO HAVE done things in a particular way, which limits god, when in reality if god is all-powerful and wise, he could just as easily have used evolution to create us. Setting up the dominos so to speak as another poster just put it.

The fact that a hardcore IDer can't wrap their head around that tells me this is entirely personal to them, which is just sad.
 
I won't fall into the trap of replying to Bulla but you guys need to read carefully his explanation on the mutation of viruses, it's hilarious and you missed it:



Bulla564 said:
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.
 
Bulla564 said:
A half-capable process becoming fully capable is NOT a big leap. What's 31,500 e-coli generations? 600,000 human years, only to improve the function of something? I wonder how long it took to assemble our entire digestive system...
Really? You're using generations to compare evolution between a multicellular organism to a single-celled prokaryote? You can't just extrapolate the scale across like that.

Even if you could, think about scale in numbers. There are more bacteria in your gut than there are cells of YOU. An order of magnitude in difference, I believe. Somewhere in the region of 10^14. 31,500 generations doesn't sound so much when that's only 0.00000003%. In just one person.

But I digress, because the comparison in that way is just stupid to begin with.

Actually a crap ton of species appear all at once at different intervals... evolutionists, of course, have to explain this away. Species can become extinct by many factors. Similarities don't infer common descent any more than common functionality. Yes, ID can explain these things and many others.
Is there something ID can't explain?
 
People, stop enabling the retards. Just leave it alone.

Rorschach said:
The amount of ownage Bulla564 has dealt in this thread is awesome. Couldn't have done it better myself. Keep up the good work.
...

Man, this country is so fucked.
 
fortified_concept said:
I won't fall into the trap of replying to Bulla but you guys need to read carefully his explanation on the mutation of viruses, it's hilarious and you missed it:
I saw that, but I read it as an oversimplification. Regardless, I think he was trying to point out that a mutation doesn't stop a virus from being a virus, supposedly as evidence to support that you can never make a new type of organism via evolution.
 
Jonm1010 said:
What i find amazing about you is you are obviously spending so much time trying to find holes in evolution yet just accept a far less plausible theory that has absolutely no scientific backing to be a viable alternative. Either your willfully dishonest or you somehow think that if evolution is debunked the default explanation has to be the Christian biblical account of creation. And in both those cases it makes you look silly.
Evolution being believed by the majority, or evolution as the last resort to explain life through natural means, doesn't make it true, especially with so much against it. I have my own beliefs, but the point of this thread is to highlight the last resort explanation being a waste of time.

No they are not, and I never implied that they were the same.
"Order" and balance in nature is seen through these systems.

Except that we haven't, but whatever, since you will never accept this let's change the subject a bit: The stance of the IDer is that god HAD TO HAVE done things in a particular way, which limits god, when in reality if god is all-powerful and wise, he could just as easily have used evolution to create us. Setting up the dominos so to speak as another poster just put it.
Sure, but I am arguing that evolution HAS NOT happened through unguided natural means. Then, the mechanisms of evolution are irrelevant to the evolution of species (which I agree with). There is no point to the theory if it all has been a guided process by design.

mrkgoo said:
I saw that, but I read it as an oversimplification. Regardless, I think he was trying to point out that a mutation doesn't stop a virus from being a virus, supposedly as evidence to support that you can never make a new type of organism via evolution.
Pretty much.
 
gkrykewy said:
Man, this country is so fucked.
WTF

First of all you don't even know where that person resides in... second what country are you referring to?

People are discussing a topic and countering comments made by Bulla... its what a forum is
 
VanMardigan said:
If anything, it's the scientists sprinkling the pixie dust by stacking the environment to get the results they want, which is fine for the purposes of this experiment. I don't want to take anything away from what this means, but I think you're actually giving this more credit than even the scientists are implying.

This could be the Miller experiment all over again, with both extremes making assumptions that didn't match what actually happened.
WTF are you talking about? Do you even know how the fuck a theory is proved? That's what they're doing here, proving a theory by creating RNA. Jesus fucking christ some of you people are dumb.
 

Haly

One day I realized that sadness is just another word for not enough coffee.
Bulla, why are you still arguing with us?

You should be out saving the world! Not doing useless crap like those silly scientists who study evolution.
 
Bulla564 said:
Mismatching fossils from mismatching dates are not uncommon anomalies in the fossil record. The complete picture is a nice set of extinct apes. To infer that they all share common ancestry is an unfalsifiable assumption.
You made a wrong assumption. I wasn't talking about fossils but about biologic evidence amongst other things as well. The complete picture isn't just fossiles, it isn't just bioligy, it isn't just astronomy, etc. It's all those things combined.

Show me an instance of scientific experimentation leading to completely different yet viable creatures (and no, two mice that can no longer reproduce don't count). Science has shown this is not possible.
You do realize complex evolution happens over tens of thousands of years?

Your car.
My car is not like a living organism at all. Who put you on this earth? Was it an intelligent designer or your mom and dad? Or did your mom and dad actively design you? The difference is that a car can't reproduce itself. Organisms can. They are self sufficient. My car can't even drive by itself.

Can you show me a completely new species of organism being intelligently designed out of nothing right now?

A half-capable process becoming fully capable is NOT a big leap. What's 31,500 e-coli generations? 600,000 human years, only to improve the function of something? I wonder how long it took to assemble our entire digestive system...
You will find that it takes bacteria more generations to mutate and evolve than more complex organisms.

Actually a crap ton of species appear all at once at different intervals... evolutionists, of course, have to explain this away.
But before that? And before that? Don't you agree that species became more and more varied as time went on? It wasn't this varied from the start was it? How does intelligent design explain that there used to be no land animals?
Was it because life started in the water? Or was it because the land was not fit to walk on yet? If there was an intelligent designer that created all this surely he could have designed us to be able to deal with the earth how it was at the time of creation of the earth or design the earth to be fit for us right away. Why leave it to a slow process like that?
It doesn't take much effort to alter my car to be able to traverse water. Why then did it take billions of years for us to be designed and put on this earth?

Can you explain how we were designed if we were designed? What was the process like, what are our building blocks, in what kind of environment were we created? Did this intelligent designer also create light and gravity?

Ugh intelligent design creates more questions than it answers. Seriously how can you believe in something that makes sense of so little in the world while it leaves all these other questions unanswered?

edit:
Species can become extinct by many factors. Similarities don't infer common descent any more than common functionality. Yes, ID can explain these things and many others.
Why so vague? These similarities can however traced back through the fossil and dna record amongst other things. Why doesn't common descent enter into intelligent design? It does in the real world. Every wheel based vehicle can be said to have a common ancestor.
 

VanMardigan

has calmed down a bit.
fortified_concept said:
WTF are you talking about? Do you even know how the fuck a theory is proved? That's what they're doing here, proving a theory by creating RNA. Jesus fucking christ some of you people are dumb.
I don't think you understood what I wrote, but I'm the fucking dumb one? :lol Pray tell, what theory was proved by creating RNA?
 
mrkgoo said:
Really? You're using generations to compare evolution between a multicellular organism to a single-celled prokaryote? You can't just extrapolate the scale across like that.

Even if you could, think about scale in numbers. There are more bacteria in your gut than there are cells of YOU. An order of magnitude in difference, I believe. Somewhere in the region of 10^14. 31,500 generations doesn't sound so much when that's only 0.00000003%. In just one person.
.
Even worse. It took that long to make a half-change in 0.00000003% of a person. It took that long to change a single-cell prokaryote, imagine significant change in a multicellular environment, where many pieces have to evolve accordingly. The probabilities are getting pretty low...

Is there something ID can't explain?
The minds of evolutionists...
 
Bulla564 said:
Even worse. It took that long to make a half-change in 0.00000003% of a person. It took that long to change a single-cell prokaryote, imagine significant change in a multicellular environment, where many pieces have to evolve accordingly. The probabilities are getting pretty low...
You have that backwards, along with pretty much everything else.
 
Karma Kramer said:
WTF

First of all you don't even know where that person resides in... second what country are you referring to?

People are discussing a topic and countering comments made by Bulla... its what a forum is
Yes I do. "Intelligent design" is a uniquely American cancerous lesion.

VanMardigan said:
There are retards on both sides. Hey look, I just quoted one!!
OMG you totally PWNT me dood. I thought you were past the junior high level of discourse.

No, there are not retards on both sides. There are delusional goofballs with medieval sensibilities on one side, and the entire developed world on the other side. Scoreboard.
 

Verano

Reads Ace as Lace. May God have mercy on their soul
wmat said:
I don't even know what the fuck you guys are going on about, but it's a lot of pretty stupid shit you're saying. Just felt like pointing that out.
Don't know why you bother posting in trivial arguments. Evolution always win.
 
Bulla564 said:
Even worse. It took that long to make a half-change in 0.00000003% of a person. It took that long to change a single-cell prokaryote, imagine significant change in a multicellular environment, where many pieces have to evolve accordingly. The probabilities are getting pretty low...
my point was that 31,500 generations happen in a blink of an eye, simply by sheer numbers (if you're talking about a point mutation having an effect on the organism). But I didn't read the example (citrate metabolism - I remember it a while back), if it means it took that many generations sequentially - actually, now that I recall, I think I did read it, and it probably was referring to that, so I see where you're trying to come from.

Still, if you're speaking down a lineage (as opposed to sheer reproductive numbers), multicelled organisms are just as conducive to evolutionary change over time (more so even, as genetic change is quite different, hereditarily than single-celled organisms). The analogy of a human reconfiguring their entire digestive system over 600,000 years is not the same thing as bacteria evolving the ability to utilise a different catabolite. It's entirely possible that humans could do the very same. In fact, I would say it's likely, given the right envornment. Think about lactose metabolism for instance.

The minds of evolutionists...
I'm being serious - is there really NOTHING that ID can't explain?
 
VanMardigan said:
I don't think you understood what I wrote, but I'm the fucking dumb one? :lol Pray tell, what theory was proved by creating RNA?
The theory scientists had for a long time that says that under certain conditions the fundamental elements of life could be created on earth which would start a process resulting to life as it is in its current form.

I don't understand? Can you explain what you meant by saying that "sprinkling the pixie dust by stacking the environment to get the results they want"? Are you saying that in a way they're forcing the results? Because then you have no fucking clue how science and theory proving fucking works. Are you suggesting that they're faking the results? Even more stupid. Either way that sentence sounds completely ignorant.
 

VanMardigan

has calmed down a bit.
gkrykewy said:
OMG you totally PWNT me dood. I thought you were past the junior high level of discourse.
gkrykewy said:
People, stop enabling the retards. Just leave it alone.
...

Man, this country is so fucked.
:lol

fortified said:
The theory scientists had for a long time that says that under certain conditions the fundamental elements of life could be created on earth which would start a process resulting to life as it is in its current form.
That theory was not proven today son. Nor was it proven when Miller's experiment produced amino acids.
 
Bulla564 said:
Even worse. It took that long to make a half-change in 0.00000003% of a person. It took that long to change a single-cell prokaryote, imagine significant change in a multicellular environment, where many pieces have to evolve accordingly. The probabilities are getting pretty low...
Like another poster pointed out. If you knew how evolution works you would know it's actually the other way around.
Scientists have shown that in the right conditions chemicals can form into a more complex self replicating construct. What makes you think this process couldn't have happened in a billion years by chance?
Do you have any concept of time, do you know how much time a BILLION years is? It is about 10.000.000 times more what it took for bacteria to evole into being able to eat nylon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.