Please, everyone, don't waste time arguing with ena. He's trolling. If you follow the patterns of his posts, it seems pretty clear he's just yanking chains, and wants to see how much effort you'll waste chasing after his scattershot attacks.
There are plenty of people I disagree with, but I don't think they are trolls. (Perhaps I have other uncharitable thoughts at times, but that's another matter. )
ena, in my opinion, is a troll. I mean, come on -- he uses Blade Runner as reference material!
On the posting of this experiment on its anniversary I was amazed to discover (most have slipped out of my memory) that it only created 13 out of the necessary 21 amino acids.
When you consider that if they were incorrect about the early conditions of Earth in any regard then it is pretty much impossible.
Nick
With this original experiment that may be true, but several others have used different conditions, with different combinations, and almost always get the same or at least similar results. There are detectable amino acids in space for crying out loud. THey didnt just appear there....
With this original experiment that may be true, but several others have used different conditions, with different combinations, and almost always get the same or at least similar results. There are detectable amino acids in space for crying out loud. THey didnt just appear there....
For crying out loud yourself, don't get all upset. Just post the studies that have proven that under natural condition we get all 21 amino acids. If it is so common, it shouldn't be difficult to find. They mentioned that this experiment here is replicated in high schools.
For crying out loud yourself, don't get all upset. Just post the studies that have proven that under natural condition we get all 21 amino acids. If it is so common, it shouldn't be difficult to find. They mentioned that this experiment here is replicated in high schools.
I will comment briefly... there are other examples of amino acids forming in other conditions... One one amino acid has been confirmed to be found in space, others have been "found" by inference...
WHAT?!? NASA is using MY tax dollars to "prove" that life emerged natural and not by holy hands of The Almighty God?
What about spending some of that green to prove that the scientists are WRONG. Its all a darvanian conspiracy against us hard working christians who slave all day and have to pay horrible taxes those liberal people in Washington who spend it on breaking up families and faith and restricting our freed...
Hey wait a minute I´m not christian. Or taxpayer in US,
On the posting of this experiment on its anniversary I was amazed to discover (most have slipped out of my memory) that it only created 13 out of the necessary 21 amino acids.
I wouldn't worry about this. Amino acids are synthesized by organisms, and then eaten by other organisms. That's the way it works these days, anyway. The leading theories on the origins of life suggest that there was some self-replicating pre-RNA molecule, which evolved into an more adaptable RNA-like life, then RNA + DNA, then the familiar RNA + DNA + proteins. Extensive use of amino acids came along rather late in the process. You would have needed only traces of a few amino acids in order to help early life recognize the benefits of incorporating them into its molecules, and from there biosynthetic pathways could evolve to expand and diversify the pool of available amino acids. Life was likely already quite far along before amino acids became important.
The key questions for the origins of life are: 1. How did a self-replicating molecule come about? and 2. How did the first self-replicating molecule separate itself from the wide, wide world?
(I realize I'm anthropomorphizing the self-replicating molecules, so insert a standard "I'm just trying to make it easier to understand" disclaimer here.)
WHAT?!? NASA is using MY tax dollars to "prove" that life emerged natural and not by holy hands of The Almighty God?
What about spending some of that green to prove that the scientists are WRONG. Its all a darvanian conspiracy against us hard working christians who slave all day and have to pay horrible taxes those liberal people in Washington who spend it on breaking up families and faith and restricting our freed...
Hey wait a minute I´m not christian. Or taxpayer in US,
Sorry for that. Carry on...
Christians aren't the only ones that have a creationist leaning. There are some religions that are much more fervent on that subject. Any monothiestic religion (excluding some sects) has the creationism dogma.
.......leading theories on the origins of life suggest that there was some self-replicating pre-RNA molecule
There is an enormous leap of faith here. I honestly don't get it. The thread started with the Miller experiments and the theories built on 13/21sts of a working model---but this last statement seems to push the theory of evolution even FURTHER into the realm of the unproven, and unlikely.
Thank you for the links bobsky---but even those articles contain many "believed to be-" and "thought to have-" type clauses.
In all seriousness, these theories all start to have the same hollow ring after a while---always changing, always having some new twist or contradiction bolted on to the same rotting framework. It's a theory that is constantly in crisis but still held as rock solid.
At any rate this is a theological discussion. Evolutionists simply demand that there be a continuity in the Chain of Being, with full participation in ultimate nature of universe. I understand and respect the choice to believe in that schema.
It's the claims to rock-solid "science" that bug me.
What the hell are you talking about? Please use the English language, and be specific.
But then, all you are doing is dishonestly perpetuating the myth that an experiment has to be 100% successful to actually contain useful information.
It must be nice living in a universe where everything is either black or white, and all answers are either yes or no. I'm sure it makes for very easy living.
Actually the point he may have been tryig to make, is people are trying to say stuff like "another nail in the coughin" for those who beleive creation.. when, to put it blunty, this experiment does NOT show how life began at all, and also you guys claiming victory again, when the experiment yuo hailed as a sucess earlier on in this same threat was a failure, and now you are like "well, we learn from them" that is BS. you dont learn from em, because your very points show you havent.
There is an enormous leap of faith here. I honestly don't get it. The thread started with the Miller experiments and the theories built on 13/21sts of a working model---but this last statement seems to push the theory of evolution even FURTHER into the realm of the unproven, and unlikely.
Thank you for the links bobsky---but even those articles contain many "believed to be-" and "thought to have-" type clauses.
In all seriousness, these theories all start to have the same hollow ring after a while---always changing, always having some new twist or contradiction bolted on to the same rotting framework. It's a theory that is constantly in crisis but still held as rock solid.
At any rate this is a theological discussion. Evolutionists simply demand that there be a continuity in the Chain of Being, with full participation in ultimate nature of universe. I understand and respect the choice to believe in that schema.
It's the claims to rock-solid "science" that bug me.
Part of the issue with the language the scientist use is that it always carries a doubt. That is unless they go out into space, collect samples of the "space dust" mass spec them, do NMR, etc they can't know definitively.
For the longest time organic chemist (and still somewhat today) would synthesize something, get spectral data and claim: this appears to be what we wanted, and then go on... There is a point at which the level of doubt does not betray the evidence that exist, but as long as there still is doubt the science remains a theory.
At any rate this is a theological discussion. Evolutionists simply demand that there be a continuity in the Chain of Being, with full participation in ultimate nature of universe. I understand and respect the choice to believe in that schema.
Hey. Billybob. The move is murder. I'm living in a building site. There are no doors in my new house; there is a stack of plasterboard in the middle of the floor and another of insulation beside it.
On the bright side, we plumbed in the washing machine today and swept up the sawdust. There's only one room with a complete plasterboard shell on it. All my possessions are in boxes. I don't have a phone line. I can't even get online.
Boring story: found somewhere to move to, bigger and cheaper. Gave notice to my landlord. Couldn't move into into new place because tenants can't move into their new place until August. My landlord wouldn't play nice.
Fortunately my girlfriend just moved into a new place 13 days ago. And said "come join me."
Unfortunately it's an undivided warehouse space of 1,800 sq. ft with no dividing walls and there are three of us in there. Hence I am building walls. I can use a drill. I never knew.
Comments
There are plenty of people I disagree with, but I don't think they are trolls. (Perhaps I have other uncharitable thoughts at times, but that's another matter.
ena, in my opinion, is a troll. I mean, come on -- he uses Blade Runner as reference material!
Please don't feed the trolls.
Originally posted by trumptman
On the posting of this experiment on its anniversary I was amazed to discover (most have slipped out of my memory) that it only created 13 out of the necessary 21 amino acids.
When you consider that if they were incorrect about the early conditions of Earth in any regard then it is pretty much impossible.
Nick
With this original experiment that may be true, but several others have used different conditions, with different combinations, and almost always get the same or at least similar results. There are detectable amino acids in space for crying out loud. THey didnt just appear there....
Originally posted by billybobsky
There are detectable amino acids in space for crying out loud.
I'd like to see some references on that. Could you post a link or two?
Originally posted by billybobsky
With this original experiment that may be true, but several others have used different conditions, with different combinations, and almost always get the same or at least similar results. There are detectable amino acids in space for crying out loud. THey didnt just appear there....
For crying out loud yourself, don't get all upset. Just post the studies that have proven that under natural condition we get all 21 amino acids. If it is so common, it shouldn't be difficult to find. They mentioned that this experiment here is replicated in high schools.
Nick
I feel your pain.
Originally posted by trumptman
For crying out loud yourself, don't get all upset. Just post the studies that have proven that under natural condition we get all 21 amino acids. If it is so common, it shouldn't be difficult to find. They mentioned that this experiment here is replicated in high schools.
Nick
Actually, I wasnt upset...
Just like the words for crying out loud...
Happy day that was easy
and related links
ugh another one
I will comment briefly... there are other examples of amino acids forming in other conditions... One one amino acid has been confirmed to be found in space, others have been "found" by inference...
What about spending some of that green to prove that the scientists are WRONG. Its all a darvanian conspiracy against us hard working christians who slave all day and have to pay horrible taxes those liberal people in Washington who spend it on breaking up families and faith and restricting our freed...
Hey wait a minute
Sorry for that. Carry on...
Originally posted by trumptman
On the posting of this experiment on its anniversary I was amazed to discover (most have slipped out of my memory) that it only created 13 out of the necessary 21 amino acids.
I wouldn't worry about this. Amino acids are synthesized by organisms, and then eaten by other organisms. That's the way it works these days, anyway. The leading theories on the origins of life suggest that there was some self-replicating pre-RNA molecule, which evolved into an more adaptable RNA-like life, then RNA + DNA, then the familiar RNA + DNA + proteins. Extensive use of amino acids came along rather late in the process. You would have needed only traces of a few amino acids in order to help early life recognize the benefits of incorporating them into its molecules, and from there biosynthetic pathways could evolve to expand and diversify the pool of available amino acids. Life was likely already quite far along before amino acids became important.
The key questions for the origins of life are: 1. How did a self-replicating molecule come about? and 2. How did the first self-replicating molecule separate itself from the wide, wide world?
(I realize I'm anthropomorphizing the self-replicating molecules, so insert a standard "I'm just trying to make it easier to understand" disclaimer here.)
Originally posted by Anders the White
WHAT?!? NASA is using MY tax dollars to "prove" that life emerged natural and not by holy hands of The Almighty God?
What about spending some of that green to prove that the scientists are WRONG. Its all a darvanian conspiracy against us hard working christians who slave all day and have to pay horrible taxes those liberal people in Washington who spend it on breaking up families and faith and restricting our freed...
Hey wait a minute
Sorry for that. Carry on...
Christians aren't the only ones that have a creationist leaning. There are some religions that are much more fervent on that subject. Any monothiestic religion (excluding some sects) has the creationism dogma.
for those unwilling or afraid to perform the experiment,
did we mention that there is a white rabbit reward if you eat all the soup?
Originally posted by Towel
.......leading theories on the origins of life suggest that there was some self-replicating pre-RNA molecule
There is an enormous leap of faith here. I honestly don't get it. The thread started with the Miller experiments and the theories built on 13/21sts of a working model---but this last statement seems to push the theory of evolution even FURTHER into the realm of the unproven, and unlikely.
Thank you for the links bobsky---but even those articles contain many "believed to be-" and "thought to have-" type clauses.
In all seriousness, these theories all start to have the same hollow ring after a while---always changing, always having some new twist or contradiction bolted on to the same rotting framework. It's a theory that is constantly in crisis but still held as rock solid.
At any rate this is a theological discussion. Evolutionists simply demand that there be a continuity in the Chain of Being, with full participation in ultimate nature of universe. I understand and respect the choice to believe in that schema.
It's the claims to rock-solid "science" that bug me.
Originally posted by xenu
What the hell are you talking about? Please use the English language, and be specific.
But then, all you are doing is dishonestly perpetuating the myth that an experiment has to be 100% successful to actually contain useful information.
It must be nice living in a universe where everything is either black or white, and all answers are either yes or no. I'm sure it makes for very easy living.
Actually the point he may have been tryig to make, is people are trying to say stuff like "another nail in the coughin" for those who beleive creation.. when, to put it blunty, this experiment does NOT show how life began at all, and also you guys claiming victory again, when the experiment yuo hailed as a sucess earlier on in this same threat was a failure, and now you are like "well, we learn from them" that is BS. you dont learn from em, because your very points show you havent.
SO THERE!
Originally posted by ena
There is an enormous leap of faith here. I honestly don't get it. The thread started with the Miller experiments and the theories built on 13/21sts of a working model---but this last statement seems to push the theory of evolution even FURTHER into the realm of the unproven, and unlikely.
Thank you for the links bobsky---but even those articles contain many "believed to be-" and "thought to have-" type clauses.
In all seriousness, these theories all start to have the same hollow ring after a while---always changing, always having some new twist or contradiction bolted on to the same rotting framework. It's a theory that is constantly in crisis but still held as rock solid.
At any rate this is a theological discussion. Evolutionists simply demand that there be a continuity in the Chain of Being, with full participation in ultimate nature of universe. I understand and respect the choice to believe in that schema.
It's the claims to rock-solid "science" that bug me.
Part of the issue with the language the scientist use is that it always carries a doubt. That is unless they go out into space, collect samples of the "space dust" mass spec them, do NMR, etc they can't know definitively.
For the longest time organic chemist (and still somewhat today) would synthesize something, get spectral data and claim: this appears to be what we wanted, and then go on... There is a point at which the level of doubt does not betray the evidence that exist, but as long as there still is doubt the science remains a theory.
Originally posted by ena
At any rate this is a theological discussion. Evolutionists simply demand that there be a continuity in the Chain of Being, with full participation in ultimate nature of universe. I understand and respect the choice to believe in that schema.
askolodtna, welcome back. Je t'embrasse.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
askolodtna, welcome back. Je t'embrasse.
Hassan! how'd the move go?
This doesn't seem to present you with any kind of problem when you read the Old Testament, after all. Sort of... inconsistent, wouldn't you say?
On the bright side, we plumbed in the washing machine today and swept up the sawdust. There's only one room with a complete plasterboard shell on it. All my possessions are in boxes. I don't have a phone line. I can't even get online.
I know where my underpants are.
Thanks for asking!
Originally posted by Anders the White
Why the move?
Boring story: found somewhere to move to, bigger and cheaper. Gave notice to my landlord. Couldn't move into into new place because tenants can't move into their new place until August. My landlord wouldn't play nice.
Fortunately my girlfriend just moved into a new place 13 days ago. And said "come join me."
Unfortunately it's an undivided warehouse space of 1,800 sq. ft with no dividing walls and there are three of us in there. Hence I am building walls. I can use a drill. I never knew.