In follow-up work to Miller and Urey’s groundbreaking study look at the synthesis of organic compounds in a primordial environment, it was shown that RNA monomeric bases could form under conditions similar to those of a prehistoric Earth. More recent work has shown how such individual bases, floating in a water environment, could link together into chains. [...] A critical question that remained unanswered, though, was how the ancient RNA enzymes could survive.
Now researchers at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in the United Kingdom think they have cracked that puzzle. By placing RNA inside liquid pockets of water encased inside cooling ice, they found that RNA enzymes could function and at the same time escape degradation.
[...]
Thus the origin of life on Earth might not have been in a deep-sea vent or open ocean, but in a cold muddy puddle in the icy north or south, which contained a mix of water and organic byproducts of freed carbon from the Earth’s crust.
[...]
Over time this life form could have built up an arsenal of useful chemicals — evolution at its most basic microscopic form. The most critical developments would have been the creation of a protective phospholipid bilayer, the creation of protein enzymes to offer faster catalysis, and last, but not least, the switch to the more chemically stable DNA. Once a self-replicating RNA-lifeform gained these adaptations, it would at last have been ready to venture into warmer climates and begin to survive and reproduce, capturing the sun’s power to fix energy in carbon-based molecules.From there a long evolutionary road lay ahead, eventually reaching man and our zoological peers in the modern world.
Looks like no ‘creator’ needed after all. Just chemical reactions, evolution and vast, hard for humans to comprehend stretches of time. Parallels Stephen Hawking’s book that shows one wasn’t needed to have created the universe either.
#198 Why don’t you summarize it?
#197 Well Al appears to be, but you know what they say opinions are like Alfreds everbody’s got one.
We all thank you for your opinion, but isn’t there enough ignorance in the world already?
# 195 Pope Alfred
“Why not be intellectually honest and agree its absurd the human eye is a product of evolution.”
The answer to that is that, by being intellectually honest, I find it perfectly plausible that the human eye is a product of evolution.
“You can carry that honesty forward and do yourself a world of good by also repenting of your bad ways, and believing Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”
You know perfectly well that this has nothing to do with honesty but rather of belief – your belief that is. I see no reason why it should do me a world of good to believe in someone whose existence is not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
“The Christ experience is certainly real, millions of changed lives can’t be wrong.”
The Mohamed experience is certainly real, millions of changed lives can’t be wrong.
@202:
Yes there is, and Alfred, you’re exceeding your quota.
tcc3, it looks like he runs out of steam around 200.
Time for a rather nice IPA…
Good night folks. Time for Alfred to go bye-byes.
#206 Thank’s for brightening up the room, by leaving.
#205 Being insulted by you is like being beaten with a wet noodle.
#204 Recycling my insults! Butterfly kick you in the head, make you lose your mind?
At least you’ve learned to use the word “insult” instead of the prissy, right wing “ad hominem”. Now if you only stopped thinking like a liberal, but that would be asking to much.
#203 How is it plausible?
If a mutation must be beneficial to be passed on, how are any of the 1000+ parts of the eye beneficial by themselves.
And how could all these incremental changes one day decide to become a functioning eye?
If its reasonable, you should be able to state it here, now, easily….
#208 Like I said, wet noodle.
What is the function of the eye?
#210 And you stopped feeling sorry for yourself. I could almost not dislike you.
Baaaaah you all must have failed basic biology if you couldn’t answer that simple question.
# 190 The_Tick said
”’
@ #116 I believe the crux of your argument is that if there exists no time or space as we know it then nothing must exist. [Um, I think I meant that if nothing exists there could be no time or space. Or at the very least, under those conditions, it would be hard to raise the capital for furnishings.] If you can tear yourself away from the fact that you have to be right, [I'm sorry, Tick, I'm afraid I can't do that.] then you may consider the fact that there may be existence independent of what we perceive as time and space. [Well, I'll consider the IDEA. I don't know how "facty" it is.]
”’
I guess I’m publicly disagreeing with the smartest guy on the planet regarding the subject of his expertise while he is at the top of his game.
That should go well….
“Because there is a law such as gravity,…”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0
jccalhoun said,
#194 “you people are still writing about this?”
No.
I’ve stopped.
Several times.
# 181 Alfred Persson said
#180 Your argument is wrong on many levels.
1)The Bible is not one book, its 66 different books which in modern day is put between two covers. Invalidating one only affects that one, not the other 65 books.
[
Argued like a real lawyer! The Bible is absolutely flawless, and it doesn't matter if there are a few mistakes here and there.
]
2)Every alleged error in scripture has been addressed by Christians.
[
Addresses? How long do we have to wait for "acknowledged" or "corrected"?
]
Countless websites treat this under the name “apologetics.”
[
which we don't need to consult since you have reposted it all here. Which is good, since reading it would be a complete waste of time if it is not reasoned out any better than you have presented it.
]
There are no factual errors in scripture,
[
So donkeys really can talk? And a third of the stars in the sky can, in fact, fall to the ground without the earth being incinerated by the first one? (I'm willing to concede the scriptures only meant the visible stars.)
]
there are lots of folks like yourself who refuse to interpret scripture naturally as they would other literature, misinterpreting genre to allege errors.
[
Sort of like how you treat natural history? Or were you hoping we hadn't noticed?
]
Its your agenda that’s the problem, not scripture.
[
My "agenda" is reality. Sorry that you have a problem with it.
]
3)In instances where the alleged discrepancy can be explained by appeal to context, folks like yourself refuse those explanations, refusing to let grasp at straws relax even a moment.
[
No, in fact, folks like myself defer to the historical and cultural context and don't try to twist things to conform to modern understanding.
We get a bigger laugh that way.
]
4)
The Bible is not a science book.
The Bible is not a history book.
The Bible is not a math book.
The Bible is not a philosophy book.
The morality of the Bible is impeccable.
The religion in the Bible is revelation of God second to none.
[
Makes the achievement of having scientific, historical, mathematical, philosophical and ethical errors all the more impressive.
]
I’m sad all this has escaped your notice, your joy at attacking scripture will become weeping and gnashing of teeth on Judgment Day, if you don’t repent.
[
Saved your best argument for last.
]
Prior to that you will be in hell, paying the penalty for every sin and slander against God and His Holy Word the Bible.
[
And you will be right next to me for idolatry.
Because you have taken a man-made artifact, the Bible and attributed supernatural infallibility to it and praised it above God even going so far as to insist that those passages that make God look weak, stupid or evil are true, thus showing contempt for God and preferring the creations of men.
]
@ #216 Like I said, if you can tear yourself away from the certainty of being correct, you may begin to understand, though at this point I have my doubts, that time and space are not necessarily “everything”. You seem to be convinced that before the universe existed that there must have been nothing. Big assumption, in my opinion, wrong assumption.
But by all means, continue removing all doubt.
And since you beaked off about gravity, please do explain why the law of said force doesn’t hold true. Should be easy for a guy who understands pre big bang physics as completely as you.
# 217 The_Tick said
”’
@ #216 Like I said, if you can tear yourself away from the certainty of being correct, you may begin to understand, though at this point I have my doubts, that time and space are not necessarily “everything”. You seem to be convinced that before the universe existed that there must have been nothing. Big assumption, in my opinion, wrong assumption.
”’
Not an assumption, really. More of a definition.
#216 Somebody
They have to attribute super natural kung fu voodoo to the bible since they don’t have a pope. That gives them their unassailable authority.
@ #218 Well there’s your problem, you think there is only one definition. You should really let the string theorists know because they are wasting all their time with questions and theories and trying to gain an understanding. Must be nice to be like you and the religious folk who never waste time with questions or truth or any of that other complicated stuff.