http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479777,00.html
Very interesting. It appears as though Scripps is up to some pretty heavy stuff:
The researchers, at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif., created molecules that self-replicate and even evolve and compete to win or lose. If that sounds exactly like life, read on to learn the controversial and thin distinction.
Read this article. It is very interesting. It seems that they have gotten RNA, a molecule that was the primitive precursor to DNA, to replicate, breed, and evolve on its own; that is, without help from added proteins or external assistance. They argue that this could be the precursor to life as we know it, and in fact, some scientists argue that it is, indeed, life.
I truly never thought I would see the day that humans spontaneously created life, but it seems that, depending on with whom you speak, we have either already done it, or we are very close to doing it.
I will be interested to see the response to this. I suspect that you will have evangelical atheists parading this around as “proof” that there is no God (which it is not, by any stretch of the imagination. As I have said before, it is impossible to prove or disprove God’s existence, barring His revealing himself to all of us). I also suspect that this is a big feather in the cap of evolutionary theory (or it will be once it is replicated, and even more so once (if?) life is created), which means that there will be a big push by Creationists to either refute the data with further testing, or to consider the experiment to be novel and interesting, but anything but proof of how life was created. Once thing is certain. There will be a lot of talk about this is years to come. Mark my words
27 comments:
I remember, years ago, seeing an experiment in a lab at MIT or CalTech or some other place. They science guys put a bunch of sterilized rocks, dirt and water in some huge contraption. The vessel had electrodes in the top. The science guys spent 3 or 4 months periodically shooting "lightning" into the vessel.
About the time the were going to give up, some kind of ooze started growing in the bottom of this thing. They took samples, it was mostly carbon ash from the lightning string the contents. But in the ooze were traces of amino acids.
Cool stuff.
I've always been an Old Earth believer. I have no idea what the length of God's days were. Maybe he did use the earth as his sterile vessel. I am sure of one thing. I hate hearing announcements like this, knowing Michael Crichton is dead!!
He'd have two chapters written by now.
Whether or not these "RNA" molecules can reproduce themselves, the odds that they could overcome the entropy needed to spontaneously make a Raccoon (yum! Thems good eatin'!) would still be astronomical.
from the article "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." Please .. they cheated. Remember, without rattling BOW's feathers, the origins of life did not have the luxury of pre-synthesized enzymes in the comfort of a controlled lab.
Please .. they cheated. Remember, without rattling BOW's feathers, the origins of life did not have the luxury of pre-synthesized enzymes in the comfort of a controlled lab.
Missy, I am not sure that I understand your point. How, exactly, are we going to do this without "synthesizing" something? Isn't that what "man-made" means?
The proteins and enzymes that were used in this process were nothing special (ie, they are found in abundance in nature). RNA has been around since long before any life was. The going hypothesis is that in this lab, they replicated conditions that existed "back then" in order to synthesize these enzymes. I am not sure how you expect them to develop "man-made" life and then scoff because it is synthetic. THe definition of synthetic is "man-made!"
Whether or not these "RNA" molecules can reproduce themselves, the odds that they could overcome the entropy needed to spontaneously make a Raccoon (yum! Thems good eatin'!) would still be astronomical.
But not impossible. Besides, you have no way of knowing the odds; what if, over billiosn of years, it is inevitable?
Besides, I get tired of people trying to apply the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) to the theory of evolution. It is simply not applicable when discussing life, because life itself is the variable (net energy added) that allows for it's violation.
Think of a pile of driftwood. Entropy states that this pile of driftwood isn't going to assemble itself into a writing desk on it's own, but that does not mean that it is impossible for that pile of driftwood to eventually become a writing desk. It just means it isn't going to do it on it's own.
In this case, a woodworker comes along, and puts the net energy into the system that is this pile of driftwood, and makes a desk out of it. Likewise, in the theory of evolution, LIFE ITSELF is the outside force that adds the net energy to the system that would allow these RNA molecules to eventually evolve, over billions of years, into a Raccon.
There is nothing spontaneous about it. THe Raccoon wasn't created spontaneously. It took BILLIONS of years of net energy added to the system by LIFE ITSELF in order for the Raccoon to become what it is. To claim that evolutionists (or any thinking person) think that self-replicating RNA strands suddenly became Raccoons with a poof and a wallop, is just intellectually bankrupt, and proves that many people choose to not understand evolutionary theory because they don't want to, not because it doesn't make sense.
As it sits, I believe that every action of God is explainable by a natural phenomenon, simply because it makes sense, that God, as the Creator of all, would have created using the systems and processes that He built into His design. The idea of "God's magic" poofing everything into existence is one way to look at it. My idea is that God used the natural systems and processes within His own creation in order to create it. Sort of like a gardener growing a garden. He didn't "will" the garden into existence, He cultivated it using the systems and processes of the natural environment. That includes using RNA to create self-replicating proteins that eventually, through natural selection, evolved into life as we know it.
let there be light & there was light
let there be raccoons & there were raccoons
spon⋅ta⋅ne⋅ous /spɒnˈteɪniəs/
Pronunciation [spon-tey-nee-uhs]
–adjective
1. coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: a spontaneous burst of applause.
2. (of a person) given to acting upon sudden impulses.
3. (of natural phenomena) arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting.
4. growing naturally or without cultivation, as plants and fruits; indigenous.
5. produced by natural process.
-------------------
Spontaneous life doesn't mean instantaneous life, only that no external forces are used to create it (def #3).
Whether God added "life energy" for billions of years or spent just six days plus another rest day to create life is not for me to know. I just need to have faith that He did it how He chose to do it.
Anyway, the researchers at the Scripps Research Institute are going to get pretty tired sitting on their laboratory stools if they have to wait a billion years for their life creation experiment to come to fruition.
Because, Goober, nothing was "synthesized" in evolution theory. They did not just take enzymes found in nature, they SYNTHESIZED enzymes, very specific enzymes, to produce their desired result. Then they put these enzymes in a controlled environment and let the experiment run. In evolutionary theory, those enzymes would have to have spontaneously occurred and in a similar environment and around similar building blocks with no help from a researcher or a god. RNA being around long before DNA is only one theory to explain the genesis of life required in evolutionary theory, it is certainly not an observed fact.
Also, just to clear up a few things about RNA. RNA is not an ancient precursor to anything. RNA is still alive and well today. There are viruses like HIV that does not have DNA but RNA. Also, our own bodies using RNA as the means that which DNA is transcribed. In fact, our bodies use several types of RNA in the process depending on the purpose and what it is bound to.
This ain't nothin'.
You should see some of the crap our civil engineers grow at the office in the kitchen refrigerator.
(It is AMAZING what half a Subway sandwich can turn into after about 3 months.)
That Lord Jeezus is a smart good feller, He is.
Geez, What it would be like to have a REAL scientist around here with the time to roll up a newspaper and swat all the snouts around here spewing Pseudo PopSci and super badly interperted snippets from Readers Digest tainted with irrational religious agendas.
But sorry, I'm too busy at the moment
Poots;
I've heard an awful lot of bragging coming from you over time about how you're the only REAl scientist and blah blah, yet I've never actually heard anything resembling intelligence come out of you regarding any scietific ideas. Scoff all you want, puff yourself up all you want. Until you add to the conversation, I'm not impressed.
In evolutionary theory, those enzymes would have to have spontaneously occurred and in a similar environment and around similar building blocks with no help from a researcher or a god.
Why does evolutionary theory necessarily preclude God?
As for the enzymes, when life was created on this Earth, no matter how it was done, the Earth was a very different place. A controlled laboratory is really the only place that those conditions can be replicated. As far as the enzymes not being found in nature, I'm not entirely sure that it is relevant.
First, as previously stated, conditions were very different back then. Possibly complex enzymes like these did/could exist back then, but can/do not now.
Second, the point of this experiment was to prove that enzymes could be created that replicate. It happened. No matter how IMPROBABLE it may be that it happened spontaneously in nature, the fact that it CAN happen means that, despite the odds, IT COULD HAVE happened. Improbable does not mean impossible. The only thing that this experiemnt proved is that it is not IMPOSSIBLE, which means, by definition, that it IS POSSIBLE.
"RNA is still alive and well today."
I never claimed that it was not, did I? It is an ancient precursor to DNA. It had been around a long time before DNA came along. By definition:
Ancient. Precursor.
Those two words do not preclude it being around today, do they? Pretty sure I never said anything other than that.
I am sorry but by using created RNA, they did more for a very basic version of intelligent design than anything else. And you still can not get past the point that these enzymes were CREATED. They did not spontaneously come into existence. You show me some version of primordial soup developing viable replicating enzymes with the necessary raw material to replicate themselves then we can talk. Until that time this shows nothing.
You can't afford my tutor time GooBar.
Beside.. I'm bizzy.
and...
With all the being serious I got 2 dew awl day, sssser-e-us ain't wut I wants 2 dew round hea.
EAT ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The second law of theromdynamics applies to a closed or isolated system, (i. e. the earth and its atmosphere and the sun). Kelvin stated it technically as: "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.
That means to me that an object can't be siginificantly warmer or colder than its surroundings; that temperatures will always tend toward equalibrium or entropy. That's all fine and good, but a refrigerator is significantly cooler than its surroundings. Would you say that a refrigerator violates the second law of thermodynamics?
Evolution may or may not be true, but you can't assert that the theory violates the second law of thermodynamics.
"Evolution may or may not be true, but you can't assert that the theory violates the second law of thermodynamics."
Thank you, Doc. The entropy argument was failed before it was even posed, yet here it is, years later, and it is still being brought up.
As far as Poots is concerned, I guess he's been given his opportunity, being the only REAL scientist on here, to wow us with his ideas and insight, but apparently "doesn't have time". Interesting.
Oh, and Poots, you might want to get qualifications straight before you go on claiming that you are the only scientist on here, or engineer, for that matter.
Missy, you're not getting it. HOW they were created is not the relevant topic. The relevant topic is that such things CAN EXIST, meaning, no matter how improbable or difficult or whatever, it means that they COULD HAVE EXISTED.
This is an insight into a possibility of how life began. There was nothing in the experiment designed to, or meant to show HOW these enzymes were created in the primordial soup, it was merely to show that it is possible for enzymes to be created that can replicate, compete, and evolve. It proved that. HOW they were created does not matter. That they CAN exist means that THEY COULD exist, meaning we now have a postulate on how life began. So what was your argument again?
Well I'm the only Engineer her ethat doesn't drive a choo choo train GooBoy.
O and Goo-Boy,
I have occasionally asserted my education (double major in col) and from my time in med sch and my 2 masters degrees (paid by Mother B) and laid out the case that yes I (me) from virtue of my various handicraft that currently orbits the earth that I could actually also be considered a 'Rocket Scientist'.
Pert much ebby bubby hea has hoid me do dat.
But too much of htat would make me look like a show off and alienate the 'lesser' intellects that visit this site.
Besides, the only real reason I'm hear at all is to get into Missy's pants and take that nebber before stained Cherry home wit me....... YeeeeeHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You gotta love the guy. I know I do.
Poots, I am well aware of your education. It is impressive, and I would completely agree with anyone who called you a rocket scientist. By the strictest definition, that is what you are.
None of your education is in biological sciences, though. A good portion of mine is (I started out as a biology major and ended up in engineering later on, and in fact, am only something like 9 credits from a biology major. I hold a minor in it). I also had a guy with a masters degree in Biology sitting over my shoulder as I wrote earlier today.
Yes, I put some stuff about God in there, but the rest of it was 100% true, and did not, I assure you, come from a reader's digest. Try a PAC-10 school.
So what you are saying is that being it is possible that it exists, it is possible that they COULD have happened spontaneously. How can you make that statement that there exists that possibility. Many things exist - like helicopters, computers, fried chicken, CD's, hard disk drives, computer software, etc .. but just because it exists does not mean it could have happened spontaneously.
It "could" have happened spontaneously if all of the elements were present. A million monkeys banging on keyboards "could" create Hamlet if given an infinite amount of time, too I suppose. What's your point? This souunds like one of those arguments about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
Creating life? Gee, the water is getting pretty deep around here. All i'm looking for is a blow-up doll that won't wear out so fast.
I hear in the news today they found "life" on Mars.
Who knew there was used condoms on Mars? Raise your hand.
...
...
...
Higher...
...
...
...
...
OH! Only the rocket scientist knew! But, Poots - that's NOT your hand you raised.
Post a Comment