solid proof of evolution

Darth Omar said:
My point is untestable assumptions aren’t very scientific lol.

God is imminently plausible. But God isn’t testable.
Click to expand...

Not plausible at all. Man created god, god did not create man. God is needed by those who need it to satisfy their religion. It has no relevance at all in fact. Not possible to test for a fictional concept.
 
Thing1 said:
(sigh) HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN YOU CAN'T ADD TIME TO THE EQUATION?

Even if it's a few thousand years, which is nothing on the geological scale. You're making faulty assumptions - sorry. That's it.
Click to expand...

billions of years and its only happened once successfully........no, not rare at all......
 
Darth Omar said:
Those sorts of things involve basic physics.

To form life from non-life they need coax something like DNA into existence. We’ll exceed the speed of light first.
Click to expand...

Mott the Hoople said:
No science was created by man and it has very specific, time tested, and proven ground rules. One of the most important of those is that only natural causation can be inferred and supernatural causation must be excluded.
Click to expand...

With all due respect and no offense intended, but you are both a bit too sure of your views given the level of man's knowledge.

Again I repeat, we know next to nothing.
 
noise said:
The scientists have synthesized for the first time RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely.
Click to expand...

nothing more than a chemical reaction........woot.....scientists using chemicals have made more chemicals.....
 
RNA is the software of life, the molecules that pack all the genetic information of a cell. DNA and the genes within it are where mutations occur, enabling changes that create new species.

RNA is the close cousin to DNA. More accurately, RNA is thought to be a primitive ancestor of DNA. RNA can't run a life form on its own, but 4 billion years ago it might have been on the verge of creating life, just needing some chemical fix to make the leap. In today's world, RNA is dependent on DNA for performing its roles, which include coding for proteins.

If RNA is in fact the ancestor to DNA, then scientists have figured they could get RNA to replicate itself in a lab without the help of any proteins or other cellular machinery. Easy to say, hard to do.

But that's exactly what the Scripps researchers did. Then things went surprisingly further.

'Immortalized'

Specifically, the researchers synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely. "Immortalized" RNA, they call it, at least within the limited conditions of a laboratory.

More significantly, the scientists then mixed different RNA enzymes that had replicated, along with some of the raw material they were working with, and let them compete in what's sure to be the next big hit: "Survivor: Test Tube."

Remarkably, they bred.

And now and then, one of these survivors would screw up, binding with some other bit of raw material it hadn't been using. Hmm. That's exactly what life forms do ...

When these mutations occurred, "the resulting recombinant enzymes also were capable of sustained replication, with the most fit replicators growing in number to dominate the mixture," the scientists report.

The "creatures" — wait, we can't call them that! — evolved, with some "species" winning out.

"It kind of blew me away," said team member Tracey Lincoln of the Scripps Research Institute, who is working on her Ph.D. "What we have is non-living, but we've been able to show that it has some life-like properties, and that was extremely interesting."

Indeed.

Knocking on life's door

Lincoln's advisor, professor Gerald Joyce, reiterated that while the self-replicating RNA enzyme systems share certain characteristics of life, they are not life as we know it.

"What we've found could be relevant to how life begins, at that key moment when Darwinian evolution starts," Joyce said in a statement.
https://www.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html
 
Granule said:
An actual event.

Sure, you assholes can quote each other all day, but no self respecting intellectual is going to sit through that circle jerk.

Show me where intelligent life springs into being without help from an actual person.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you needed the help and didn't get it.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No it doesn’t. We only know that life occurred and that the probability of it occurring by chance or randomly or by Devine intervention is unity, e.g., 1.0.

What we simply do not know is how it happened. The argument you are trying to make is a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

And you’re trying to make a non-assumption out of an assumption lol.

Of course life occurred. How it occurred is the question. The reigning assumption is that life will happen anytime the conditions are met [conditions + time].

Until that is demonstrated, it’s an assumption.
 
Darth Omar said:
And you’re trying to make a non-assumption out of an assumption lol.

Of course life occurred. How it occurred is the question. The reigning assumption is that life will happen anytime the conditions are met [conditions + time].

Until that is demonstrated, it’s an assumption.
Click to expand...
No it isn’t. Show me a peer reviewed document where that is assumed? The consensus in science is we simply don’t know the historical origins of life.
 
noise said:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm
A pair of Scripps Research Institute scientists has taken a significant step toward answering that question. The scientists have synthesized for the first time RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely.

The work was recently published in the journal Science.

In the modern world, DNA carries the genetic sequence for advanced organisms, while RNA is dependent on DNA for performing its roles such as building proteins. But one prominent theory about the origins of life, called the RNA World model, postulates that because RNA can function as both a gene and an enzyme, RNA might have come before DNA and protein and acted as the ancestral molecule of life. However, the process of copying a genetic molecule, which is considered a basic qualification for life, appears to be exceedingly complex, involving many proteins and other cellular components.

For years, researchers have wondered whether there might be some simpler way to copy RNA, brought about by the RNA itself. Some tentative steps along this road had previously been taken by the Joyce lab and others, but no one could demonstrate that RNA replication could be self-propagating, that is, result in new copies of RNA that also could copy themselves.
Click to expand...

Those kinds of experiments are interesting but they only focus on one aspect of the problem.

There’s the replication problem and there’s the information problem. Mott doesn’t like my computer analogies but here goes lol. What is demonstrated with self-replicating RNA is analogous to randomly generated computer code. In other words, it wouldn’t code for anything biologically meaningful.

You also have to keep in mind that conditions in a lab are tightly controlled, to put it mildly. Synthesizing even simple organic compounds is tricky business. RNA is a complex molecule—it would interesting to know how many steps are involved in synthesizing it.

To think it ‘could just happen to happen’ in nature, begs for at least a degree of skepticism.
 
Darth Omar said:
The universe isn’t somehow ‘less scientific’ if God created it lol.

Granted, the creative event itself would lie beyond science but the rest of the universe would be amenable to science. In fact, a universe that is the product of an infinite mind would be MORE ‘scientific’ because all the physical laws and constants would ultimately be based in rationality.
Click to expand...
The usual wishful thinking. The physical laws and constants are based on what works.
And what do we find?

Patterns, mathematical symmetry in the laws and constants. All the planets, asteroids and comets obey Newtonian physics which causes them to be as predictable as any Swiss watch.

All of the physical constants are fined tuned to such an extent that if any of them varied a tiny a bit I wouldn’t be sitting here typing this.
Click to expand...
But something completely different would be.

Biology is infused with rationality and it is more scientific on account of it. DNA functions exactly like computer code—except that ours is primitive by comparison. All cellular structures and events proceed in strict accordance with a *rational* code contained in the DNA molecule.

I would argue the universe is MORE scientific if it the product of an infinite mind.
Click to expand...
And even more wishful thinking. As NOVA said, primitive herders invented God to explain what they couldn't understand. Belief in God survives for the same reason. As human knowledge increases there's less and less room for any gods.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No it isn’t. Show me a peer reviewed document where that is assumed? The consensus in science is we simply don’t know the historical origins of life.
Click to expand...

Who needs a document?

Life is *assumed* to be present elsewhere in the galaxy or we wouldn’t be looking for it. The underlying assumption is that life will occur on any planet—given the proper conditions.
 
Darth Omar said:
Who needs a document?

Life is *assumed* to be present elsewhere in the galaxy or we wouldn’t be looking for it. The underlying assumption is that life will occur on any planet—given the proper conditions.
Click to expand...

or that the conditions and the life there were created.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top