RNA Synthesis under Early Earth Conditions.

May 26, 2009 Full story: www.sciencenews.org 564

Scientists may have figured out the chemistry that sparked the beginning of life on Earth. By changing the way they approached the basic chemistry of RNA scientists have created RNA from scratch

Full Story
First Prev
of 29
Next Last

“Religion is Superstition”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#1 May 26, 2009
It would appear we are a step closer to understanding how life originated on this planet.

“Shaggin' Wagon.”

Since: Apr 09

Springfield, MA

#2 May 26, 2009
Christopher Pearsoll wrote:
It would appear we are a step closer to understanding how life originated on this planet.
Yep. With the evolving RNA story not much else is needed.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#3 May 26, 2009
Noodly James wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. With the evolving RNA story not much else is needed.
Well, I'm sure the fall-back position will be "yeah, well, how did non-living chemicals evolve into self-replicating ... er, um, non-living chemicals that can, um,... evolve and,... uh,... self replicate?"

“Shaggin' Wagon.”

Since: Apr 09

Springfield, MA

#4 May 26, 2009
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I'm sure the fall-back position will be "yeah, well, how did non-living chemicals evolve into self-replicating ... er, um, non-living chemicals that can, um,... evolve and,... uh,... self replicate?"
Oh I'm certain of it. Even when we make new life forms (like glow in the dark puppies isn't new) they will simply claim that it proves the requirement of a designer.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#5 May 26, 2009
Noodly James wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I'm certain of it. Even when we make new life forms (like glow in the dark puppies isn't new) they will simply claim that it proves the requirement of a designer.
Yeah. How quickly the spin begins when they're caught between a rock and a hard place.

For years one of their favorite arguments has been "it can't have happened because no one has done it in the lab yet. It has to be repeatable and observable".

Now it will be "it can't be happened because it was done in a lab under repeatable and observable conditions which just "proves' that it needs an intelligence to do it".

The sad part is that the "creationists" will all believe these lies that they keep telling themselves, even when they have to constantly change their lies to keep up with the science.

“Shaggin' Wagon.”

Since: Apr 09

Springfield, MA

#6 May 27, 2009
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. How quickly the spin begins when they're caught between a rock and a hard place.
For years one of their favorite arguments has been "it can't have happened because no one has done it in the lab yet. It has to be repeatable and observable".
Now it will be "it can't be happened because it was done in a lab under repeatable and observable conditions which just "proves' that it needs an intelligence to do it".
The sad part is that the "creationists" will all believe these lies that they keep telling themselves, even when they have to constantly change their lies to keep up with the science.
I think my favorite thus far has been the creationist who claimed that when science found aliens it would be proof of the biblical god. I started speaking in tongues.
Mathias

Pearsall, TX

#7 Jun 3, 2009
I read in an article "Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory"

The Reference was to RNA,(which is actually a chemical compound and not alive in and of itself)

I say that baking a brick does not build a house.

John Sutherland, one of the main researchers for the project stated

"By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides”

Thereby admitting they guided the experiment, just as a baker mixes cake batter for a cake.
Evolutionists tried to run with this by saying the molecule "spontaneously formed" which is a fraudulent assertion. It was created,by scientists yes, but created nonetheless

Everyone is a creationist, it's just some people believe in naturalistic creationism (abiogenesis) while others (such as myself) believe in Supernatural creationism.

ultimately Life can only come from life, you could have all the chemicals but without life you can't have life, period.

“Dor sho gha!”

Since: Apr 08

Iowa City, IA

#8 Jun 3, 2009
Mathias wrote:
ultimately Life can only come from life, you could have all the chemicals but without life you can't have life, period.
What do you base this assertion on?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#9 Jun 3, 2009
Mathias wrote:
Evolutionists tried to run with this by saying the molecule "spontaneously formed" which is a fraudulent assertion.
Where did you find this tid-bit? I'e read both articles and don't where this assertion is made.
Mathias

Pearsall, TX

#10 Jun 3, 2009
the Law of Biogenesis, life can only give rise to life, that was shown 100 years ago by a NUMBER of experiments, sorry folks but life is more than chemical
Mathias

Pearsall, TX

#11 Jun 3, 2009
I saw the assertion on a couple of responders sites

“Shaggin' Wagon.”

Since: Apr 09

Springfield, MA

#12 Jun 3, 2009
Mathias wrote:
I read in an article "Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory"
The Reference was to RNA,(which is actually a chemical compound and not alive in and of itself)
I say that baking a brick does not build a house.
John Sutherland, one of the main researchers for the project stated
"By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides”
Thereby admitting they guided the experiment, just as a baker mixes cake batter for a cake.
Evolutionists tried to run with this by saying the molecule "spontaneously formed" which is a fraudulent assertion. It was created,by scientists yes, but created nonetheless
Everyone is a creationist, it's just some people believe in naturalistic creationism (abiogenesis) while others (such as myself) believe in Supernatural creationism.
ultimately Life can only come from life, you could have all the chemicals but without life you can't have life, period.
Actually, they stopped premaking the ribose and bases and just let the reactions run. Thereofore LESS interaction yielded BETTER results.

“Shaggin' Wagon.”

Since: Apr 09

Springfield, MA

#13 Jun 3, 2009
Mathias wrote:
the Law of Biogenesis, life can only give rise to life, that was shown 100 years ago by a NUMBER of experiments, sorry folks but life is more than chemical
Again with the "Law" !!?!? Look, pasteur proving mice don't come from wheat or that maggots don't just appear on rotting meat does not a refute of abiogenesis make, capiche?
-
Life comes from nonlife......ok......what is god again?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#14 Jun 3, 2009
But, how does this explain the origin of the universe and the meaning of life? Just saving the idiots some time by throwing it out there.

“Shaggin' Wagon.”

Since: Apr 09

Springfield, MA

#15 Jun 3, 2009
I should also add that life is more than magic and invisible fairy farts.
Mathias

Pearsall, TX

#16 Jun 3, 2009
Hey Mike anybody remotely familiar with biology can see they (evolutionists) are grasping at straws, it is not difficult to synthesize chemicals,it's done in forensics all the time, making life with all its detail,order, and complexity is a very far different matter, and NATURE in and of itself cannot create information, information is an indesputable proof of intelligence
RealityIsAllTher eIs

Mesa, AZ

#17 Jun 3, 2009
Mathias wrote:
Everyone is a creationist, it's just some people believe in naturalistic creationism (abiogenesis) while others (such as myself) believe in Supernatural creationism.
No...'Natural Creationism' as you put it, would be more accurately represented as a 'reaction'- not a 'creation'.
Mathias

Pearsall, TX

#18 Jun 3, 2009
Noodly, God is the Life/Energy Source/by which all things actually living come from, when God created Adam He was transferring energy/life to Adam, not creating new energy, what he created was not the energy itself, but the living being

You may ask "where did God come from" and my answer is that He has been since before life in the universe began,the energy behind all things that now exist
Mathias

Pearsall, TX

#19 Jun 3, 2009
A reaction is still creation

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#20 Jun 3, 2009
Mathias wrote:
Hey Mike anybody remotely familiar with biology can see they (evolutionists) are grasping at straws...[/QUOTE

And yet those extremely familiar with biology disagree with you.

[QUOTE who="Mathias"]...NAT URE in and of itself cannot create information, information is an indesputable proof of intelligence
Depends on how you're defining 'information'. I'm sure we have differing viewpoints on this.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 29
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Nano college is officially SUNY Polytechnic Ins... Sep 13 UtiKowfuck NY 26
Father and son who integrated Huntsville public... (Sep '13) Sep '13 Mr X 1
Watson goes to college: How the world's smartes... (Mar '13) Jun '13 college censored 2
'Machine Starts' message uncertain (Mar '13) Mar '13 lance reventlowser 4
Batteries Made From World's Thinnest Material C... (Aug '12) Aug '12 Keegan 1
Future looks bright for energy-saving Oberlin h... (Aug '12) Aug '12 Mark Chesler 1
Three seek to be Seabrook Town Clerk (Mar '11) Jul '12 complete recall 9

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE