digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

New insights into the origin of life on Earth

physorg.com — In an advance toward understanding the origin of life on Earth, scientists have shown that parts of the Krebs cycle can run in reverse, producing biomolecules that could jump-start life with only sunlight and a mineral present in the primordial oceans.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • tsunamisteve, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3Which reminds me... I have an astronomy final to study for.
  • LemurHorde, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Actual article for those who want some hard science
    http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/jacsat/asap/html/ja066103k.html
    • endlessoul, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Hard science? Yes.

      Hurts my brain at 6 AM? Yes.
  • Bellaflor, on 10/12/2007, -17/+0These news might help to explain the possibility of time-travelling!
  • chicbicyclist, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28If correct, there goes the primary creationist argument that life cannot just come out of 'nothing'.
    • Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -6/+37It's sad but your point is valid. Almost every rebuttal proposed by a creationist is an appealing towards ignorance. When I had a little argument with my extra fundamentalist parents they invoked the, "How do you explain evolution," (Explained it), "Well where did all that come from" (Gave some primitive knowledge of the great chances of a planet like this forming) "Then where did the universe come from?" There will always be a steady regression from creationists. Hopefully we can finally understand the origin of life. Not only will that greatly increase the world's knowledge, it'll be another score for knowledge against wishful thinking.
    • madchemst, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9Ugh. Creationists are borrrrrrring.
    • piesforyou, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16You can turn that argument around on creationists though. They have just as little idea about where the universe came from as we do. They have faith that god created the universe, but they don't know it.

      I have faith that the flying spaghetti monster created the universe.
    • robot1122, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13I have been noticing a trend while arguing with creationists. Usually they use the eye as an example; saying "how could something so complex just appear?" But lately, because they cannot hold on that previous argument, they have been using the origin of morality.
      It is a strange shift, but still arguable. Now that we have things like this, we need an evolutionary chart for social dynamics.
    • drlog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Note: I'm an atheist.

      So now, we know how the solar system formed, planets formed, life started and evolution put us up to the current point. But where did the matter come from in the first place? Its the only question that boggles my mind. The big bang doesn't really cut it for me because you then ask the question "Where did the big bang come from?" or "Where did the matter for the big bang come from?"
    • w0mbat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@drlog:
      You've got a good point, there are a lot of unanswered questions out there, but it's ok not to know. Like you I'm an atheist (prefer humanist actually) and don't feel I need to invent a "god of the gaps" to explain the things that confuse or worry me. We (or rather, cosmologists) can keep looking for answers, but I find it pretty difficult to imagine how we can even begin to work out what happened "before" the big bang, but you never know.

      I think we all have to learn to live with a little bit of ignorance. :)
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Actually, drlog, your question is based in a fallacy - the assumption that everything must have a cause preceding it in linear time. This is understandable, since it is based on our everyday experience, but, as with many other natural phenomena, we learn that reality does not always conform to our superficial understanding.

      There are several conjectures that demonstrate that the universe may be both its own proximate and ultimate cause, that no "first event" is needed.

      Religion's supernatural answer is no answer at all, in fact; saying "goddidit" just raises the question of "who created god?"

      If the answer is that a god requires no creator, or that it isn't important to know that, they why doesn't the same logic apply to the universe?

      Either way, "we don't know what caused the first thing" is not a satisfactory reason to invent a "god", which is just a convenient label for "I don't know" (just like the recent Digg about "nullity", where someone invented a term meaning "the product of dividing by zero" and thought that, by doing so, they somehow magically resolved the problem that dividing by zero has no meaning.
    • Spook27, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5(Sections in quotes are from Robot1122)

      "I have been noticing a trend while arguing with creationists. Usually they use the eye as an example; saying 'how could something so complex just appear?'"

      Yep, that's part of their latest pseudo scientific spiel - they keep going back to a paper on something called "Irreducible Complexity" by Behe (I think). The problem with that is that anyone who gets past the obfuscating language and other babble quickly figures out that the paper never bothers to actually define the subject that it's supposed to be about in the first place.

      Of course, most ID proponents aren't actually aware of the material in their own field and never make it to the point where they would bring up this paper in an argument. I say to just point out that that argument is a logical fallacy - the argument from personal incredulity.

      "But lately, because they cannot hold on that previous argument, they have been using the origin of morality."

      This is one I haven't heard yet, could you elaborate?

      "It is a strange shift, but still arguable. Now that we have things like this, we need an evolutionary chart for social dynamics."

      Well, you know as some things get weeded out by logic and reason, it's only natural that their argument would evolve into something else. ;)
    • Kniggit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4And there you have it - *IF* it is correct, it disproves creationism. Unfortunately, this is a useless statement. Why? Well, as a scientist and engineer, I ask you to PROVE IT.

      Yours is a belief/faith statement as much as a creationist's is. This is only a portion of the total process involved in creating life. As much as many people would love to believe we've found out how to create life, these scientists have not done so. It is absolutely fascinating work and should be taken to its logical conclusion, but don't let your own biases relieve you of your responsibility to demonstrate what you claim faith cannot. That is the absolute demand of science.
    • chosenone-, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Emptiness is form.
    • neondiet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2
      @Daunting
      "How do you explain evolution," (Explained it), "Well where did all that come from" (Gave some primitive knowledge of the great chances of a planet like this forming) "Then where did the universe come from?"


      You can turn this on its head quite easily. You say: "where did the universe come from?" and they say: "God created it". Then you say: "Where did God come from" and they answer: "He's always existed".

      Now you've pushed them as far back as they can go, and you can then say: "If you can believe in a God that has always existed, then why can't you believe that the Universe in some shape or form (pre and post big bang) has always existed? I do, and there's plenty of evidence supporting my belief". There is no logical answer to that, only intangible "belief".


      Another logical argument Christians can't deal with is this. Assuming a belief in God -- In the beginning there was nothing, only God, and he created everything that exists today. He also created the Angels, which means he created Lucifer. Lucifer was different in that he had Evil in him. But where did that Evil come from? If in the beginning there was nothing, then God created Evil and planted it in Lucifer. After Lucifer rebelled God cast him out of heaven and into Hell. Where did Hell come from? Lucifer didn't make it, so God must have.

      If in the beginning there was nothing, then God created Evil & Hell, so Evil must be a part of God. It could not have come from anywhere else; therefore God must be Evil as well as good. But how can that be when the Bible says he's "perfect"?

      Even worse, if God knows the past, present and future as Christians claim, then the creation of Evil, Hell, Lucifer, and all the Evil things men have done over the centuries was pre-meditated by God. Hardly the act of a "perfect" being. It also shows the Bible is wrong -- its core concepts are fatally flawed.
    • sbrickner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hey Daunting... you managed to prompt the *other* tired response of creationists...

      "Yours is a belief/faith statement as much as a creationist's is."

      Nonsense. Let's grant for the moment (though it's false) that evolution is a "faith" position. The notion that it's so "as much as" creationism is preposterous.

      Evolutionary theory invites you to examine all the facts (all of them, not just the ones your pastor told you to whine about) and see if they don't fit the evidence and provide a useful framework in which to reason about biology. Evolutionary theory is also only "contingently" true - it's offered as the best theory we have so far, not as the only possible theory. Nothing else happens to come even remotely close. So at most, you must have "faith" in the ability of reason to discern truth - and the modern world is full of technological marvels that attest to how just how good the power of reason is.

      Creationism demands you to stop asking any more questions about the subject. It masquerades as a "final" answer. To a scientist, even accepting the idea of an "intelligent designer", it begs the question - *how* did he create his creation. The ID answer is "magic" (a non-scientific answer). The scientist would study it all and (most likely) decide - "Ah, through the 'magic' evolution."

      Creationism is relgion. Religion depends on faith in a wholly different way than science. Science asks you to believe that 2+2 will still be 4 tomorrow. Religion asks you to believe that dead people come back to life, that the world is about 6000 years old and there used to be talking snakes with agendas.

      This is the difference between shooting a gun and throwing a bullet. They just ain't "the same".
    • SteveInsrtTtl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Theoretically, not even time existed before the big bang. Stephen Hawking used the idea of a sphere to explain it; the sphere is finite, like the universe, but does not have a beginning or end. Still pretty difficult to grasp though.
  • jlebrech, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"And light went to a thro across the watery deep and life came to be", Guess what book thats from.
  • feralkid, on 10/12/2007, -16/+14Oh you poor diggers. Why can't you just beleeeeeive in the Baby Jeebus?!
    • pixelperfect, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5#1. Why do people assume all creationists (Christians) disregard the theory of evolution.
      #2. Why is there so much Christian bashing these days?
      #3. Not all Christians are ignorant to science/technology. I'm Not. So there's one.
    • drlog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7The way I see it, science and religion contradict each other. Sure, you can pick and choose bits of the bible. However, which bits should you throw away and which bits should you keep? Is it up to each individual?
    • pixelperfect, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Well, I have yet to hear how evolution contradicts the bible, or how any science related facts contradict the bible. They are completely compatible in my eyes. Who do you think I believe created science?
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Why does everyone assume all Christians believe in Creationism?

      I'm Roman Catholic, and I believe in Evolution, and think Creationism is nothing more than a story made up to explain the unexplainable AT THAT TIME.
    • AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@pixelperfect
      "Well, I have yet to hear how evolution contradicts the bible, or how any science related facts contradict the bible."

      Leviticus 11:6
      "11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."

      Rabbits don't chew cud. It LOOKS like they do, and in fact they recycle their own droppings to better digest plant material, but that's not chewing cud.

      I realize that it's an extremely small detail, but we're talking about a book that many people claim to be the literal and unaltered capital-T Truth of existence and the meaning of life, so I hold it at a slightly higher standard than most other works.

      If you want to view the bible as being mainly metaphor and parable, then that's fine. I'm not convinced that it's anything other than yet another ancient myth, much like the Greek or Norse gods, but if that's what you or anyone else wants to believe, that's fine with me. As long as you aren't a biblical literalist (which I have no respect for), and as long as you don't try to force your religion on others (including attempts to legislate religious dogma), then I'm happy that you're happy.
    • nitsuj, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@pixelperfect

      "Well, I have yet to hear how evolution contradicts the bible, or how any science related facts contradict the bible. They are completely compatible in my eyes. Who do you think I believe created science?"

      Well, it depends if you're a bible literalist or not. The genesis account describes god creating Adam and Eve complete and fully formed. Evolution postulates that we have evolved from simpler organisms.

      If you're an extreme literalist and believe that the Earth is only 6000 yrs old (a figure derived from the guesswork calculations of an Irish Bishop!) then there is a heap of established scientific data showing otherwise.

      There's the flood myth which claims that all lifeforms were taken onto a boat during a great flood. The boat is an impossibility and there is no evidence for the flood.

      People rising from the dead, virgin births, walking on water and other miracles fly directly in the face of what we know about the world via science.

      With regards to who created science - we did. Science is a way of obtaining knowledge about existence as accurately as possible. Using it we can separate fact from fallacy, much to the annoyance of creationists.
    • orientis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Errr... The flood myth is common to hundreds of different cultures, and there is evidence of a major global flood too. I'm not in any way religious, but that story seems to be based on a fact or two..
    • orientis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Errr... The flood myth is common to hundreds of different cultures, and there is evidence of a major global flood too. I'm not in any way religious, but that story seems to be based on a fact or two.."

      In the same way that the Dwarves Lord of the Rings is based on the fact that there are short people - and that they are a mythological race common to hundreds of different cultures.

      That doesn't mean the story itself isn't completely false.
    • polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Pixel

      Since you seem to want a quick one-liner for an answer (ie. religion), i will provide. Evolution of species takes a rediculous amount of time. Much more than 6000 or so odd years is required. Contradiction.
  • KarthVader, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12What I can't stand is when college professors start talking about creationims or intelligent design. I pay 15k a year to be taught about scientific fact, not creationist theology, especially in a science lecture.
    • Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25change schools, because that college sounds ***** if your science teacher believes in creationism
    • manifestdata, on 10/12/2007, -17/+5Thats a pretty ignorant statement there Alphabet. Why is it that we are seeing kids like alphabet turning into "Evangelical Evolutionists". I myself firmly believe in evolution but I don't think the best way to bring people around is to say, "I'm right, everyone else is stupid." Leave that for the Catholics.

      Secondly, my PChem (WORST CLASS EVER) professor at Georgia Tech was absolutely brilliant and she followed the creationist beliefs. Not once during our semester did she tell us or let this interfere her teaching (yeah I know its chemistry, not biology). Only during an office visit did I find out when I saw a family photo of her family in church attire. Religious persecution is so 15th century. Please lets not discredit all of the research made to back evolution by getting into a never ending debate with others. As we have recently seen, science will eventually prove everything in time.
    • Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Religion is so 15th century.
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6How does a picture of her in religious attire mean that she's a creationist?
  • Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10This kind of research is interesting, not just because of the obvious part of possibly learning how to create life in the future, but because insight in this help us learn how and where there may exist life elsewhere in the universe -- what environmental circumstances to look for -- to give a clue without necessarily having to descend on the surface and start digging.

    Of course, if the molecules and reactions involved are basic and common enough, we may end up having to do that fairly often anyway. :-) And perhaps it's hard to find out in subsurface circumstances, as with what's below the ice of Europa, and now lately with the discovery of running water, below the sand on Mars. Something that's also exciting about all this is that life has the remarkable tendency to appear wherever it at all can appear.
  • XandraX, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8This discovery leaves MANY origins issues still unsolved, so don't get all excited just yet:

    The reactions were observed under carefully planned experimental conditions. The Krebs cycle CAN run in reverse, but the researchers give no indication of whether this has ever happened naturally. The "given enough time" argument cannot be used because equilibriums are reached and the probability of something happening by chance in the primordial soup becomes less and less as time goes on.

    I didn't see anything in the article about the presence or absense of Oxygen. Free oxygen destroys organic compounds which are not protected by a cell membrane. Conversely, if there was no oxygen (therefore no ozone), ultraviolet light would destroy the organic molecules.

    The article doesn't mention how long the organic compounds stuck around for. Probably because the UV which was required for the reverse chemical reaction promptly destroyed the molecules.

    Biochemicals would react with each other or with inorganic chemicals. Sugars (and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds) react destructively with amino acids (and other amino (–NH2) compounds), but both must be present for a cell to form.

    Without enzymes from a living cell, formaldehyde (HCHO) reactions with hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are necessary for the formation of DNA and RNA bases, condensing agents, etc. But HCHO and especially HCN are deadly poisons - they destroy vital proteins.

    Sugars are destroyed quickly after the reaction (‘formose’) which is supposed to have formed them. Also, the alkaline conditions needed to form sugars are incompatible with acid conditions required to form polypeptides with condensing agents.

    Life requires catalysts which are specific for a single type of molecule. This requires specific amino acid sequences, which have extremely low probabilities (~10^–650 for all the enzymes required). Prebiotic polymerisation simulations yield random sequences, not functional proteins or enzymes.

    The article doesn't say what proportion of the resultant molecules are right handed and left handed. A small fraction of wrong handed molecules terminates RNA replication, shortens polypeptides, and ruins enzymes.

    In short, this discovery solves one small problem which is subsequently smothered by many, many giant problems.
    • TritonX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"In short, this discovery solves one small problem which is subsequently smothered by many, many giant problems."
      Ain't that the magic of science, to discover something that gives us more questions than answers based on facts?
    • XandraX, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Sure, but a lot of people are way too quick to assume that something has been solved or proven. See most of the comments above :)
    • daxsymbiont, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2the problem of their "later protection" doesn't deny their existence. unless, you think their initial existence is unproven
    • arduenn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"I didn't see anything in the article about the presence or absense of Oxygen. Free oxygen destroys organic compounds which are not protected by a cell membrane. Conversely, if there was no oxygen (therefore no ozone), ultraviolet light would destroy the organic molecules."

      The Krebs cycle does not involve the use of oxygen. It just provides high-energy molecules such as NADH, which can act as a fuel. And life has sustained itself for billions of years in an oxygen-free (ozone-free, UV-rich) world.

      "especially HCN are deadly poisons - they destroy vital proteins."

      HCN doesn't destroy proteins. It just blocks cytochromes in aerobic organisms. Anaerobic organisms are insensitive to it.

      Why are you commenting on this new by using unrelated and unfounded snippets of 'facts'?
    • johnnynack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The whole point of the article is to introduce you to the Research paper. When the research paper is released, read it and i am sure your questions will be asked.
      Also, enzyme evolution is based upon the idea that inhibitors are not present. If CN was present, it would have influenced the evolution of the enzyme.
  • daxsymbiont, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1that sounds like an incredible discovery.

    have we found before how life is possible starting from inorganic?
    • polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Simplicity breed complexity. On each new level of organization, emergent properties result. Our classification of life is just one level of organization.
  • Esstee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Great! - So... when do we start creating life?
    • Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3one step closer to proving there is a god .. and it will be us
    • Dajestar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We create life every day, by giving birth to our children ;-)
  • phenolholic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5as a chemist, all i can say is "whoah" .. this just opened a pandora's box of coordination chemistry, organometallics, and physical organic chemistry. looks like i have some post-doc work (in the avenues of computational chemistry, ofcourse)
  • Nistavar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1 Sounds good enough to me. Though personally I think we were brought here by the denizens of space in which we, the human race, will never understand.
  • zfanatic, on 10/12/2007, -9/+0"could jump-start life with only sunlight and a mineral present in the primordial oceans"

    for those of you who, for some reason, insist that this could somehow make creationism backers back track... answer this.

    where did the sunlight and minerals come from? they can go backwards, forwards, up, down, anywhwere. No human will ever be able to tell what happened! Unless they read the bible of course;-)
    • w0mbat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Ah yes, the bibble has all the answers.. except some of them are allegorical, or historical or just figurative language interpreted in many different ways by many different people for as many different reasons.

      Better hope no one takes it too seriously!
    • Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2when we figure out the real answer we will tell you (and your current answer will go from being fact to 'its a metaphor, its not meant to be taken literally')
    • AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@zfanatic

      "for those of you who, for some reason, insist that this could somehow make creationism backers back track... answer this.

      where did the sunlight and minerals come from?"


      Not sure if you're playing devil's (hah!) advocate or not, but I'll bite. Of course, the answer is "God", right? Except this response ignores the fact that all you're doing is postulating some sort of eternal "prime cause". Nothing in the way this description of God is framed indicates that it's the Hebrew / Christian God at all. All you're saying is that *something* must have caused the universe. It might have been Zeus. Or Ra. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or my Uncle Bob. Hell, it doesn't even need to be an intelligent entity; It doesn't even need to be an entity at all. It cold just be "The Primordial Energy Field".

      So when someone says "Well Mr. Smarty Pants, what caused the Big Bang?" I just shrug and say "Hell if I know. Assuming that our concept of cause-and-effect holds for times before 1 Planck Time, then *something* must've been the cause. You want to claim that one of the thousands of proposed gods on one tiny planet in the provincial backwater of a nondescript spiral galaxy in a fairly average cluster was the cause? A bit presumptuous, don't you think? I'll just stick with calling it "something" until we've defined it better, if you don't mind.
    • nitsuj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"where did the sunlight and minerals come from? they can go backwards, forwards, up, down, anywhwere. No human will ever be able to tell what happened! Unless they read the bible of course;-)"

      The sunlight comes from the sun and minerals (heavier elements) are forged in the hearts of stars and are then expelled when the star goes supernova. Where does it also explain this in the bible?

      And in case what you're really referring to is the first cause then answer this: what caused your god? Think why your answer cannot be applied to the universe in general.
    • tuqueu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2In the beginning, there was nothing; No space, No time, No matter --

      then it exploded.

      Murphy's law of Cosmology
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@zfanatic:
      "for those of you who, for some reason, insist that this could somehow make creationism backers back track... answer this."

      You lost us when you used the word "reason" in combination with "creationism backers".
  • tobyvoss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0how are the results of the reverse Krebs cycle different from the results of photosynthesis? could there be any relation (evolution-wise)?
  • Yage2006, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@pixelperfect
    "#1. Why do people assume all creationists (Christians) disregard the theory of evolution."
    "#2. Why is there so much Christian bashing these days?"
    "#3. Not all Christians are ignorant to science/technology. I'm Not. So there's one."

    1. Because if you do believe in evolution then you might as well be agnostic and not cristian and then why bother.

    2. Because with them in charge they are ***** up the planet ie: BUSH

    3. Yes they are and you just proved it.
    • zfanatic, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0evolution and "darwins evolution" are two different things... which obviously you fail to realize.
    • teknotant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21)Christian?
      2)BUSH is a twisted individual but you are making a harsh generalization.
      3)you're a dumbass
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@zfanatic,

      Can you elucidate for us the difference between "evolution" and "Darwin's evolution", as you think you understand it?

      Thanks.
    • pixelperfect, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@Yage2006 (here we go again)
      #1. I never said I personaly believe in evolution, I do believe God created it all - who knows how scientificaly. We just know the order.
      #2. WHY does everyone say BUSH is a Christian, that is pathetic (so is he), I don't believe he acts like a Christian - Therefore he is probably FAKING IT. Please don't link him with Christianity. When did he publicly say he was one anyway - doesn't matter though.
      #3. Oh, I am Ignorant?
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5pixel perfect, you manage to cram multiple instances of circular reasoning into your posts.

      1.
      "I do believe God created it all - who knows how scientificaly. We just know the order."

      If your premise is supernatural, then asking for a scientific explanation is contradictory - and "knowing the order" is a faith-based, not logic-based, assumption. Since your premise is faith-based, arguing the science is dishonest - just like creationists who argue complexity using scientific terminology and misappropriating conveniently out-of-context bits of scientific evidence (when they are not outright falsifying it) when in reality they reject the very scientific method as a basis for discovery and understanding. Don't make a dishonest argument - if you blindly believe "Goddidit", no matter what evidence may come, then don't presume to argue scientific details.

      2. Arguing that every Christian who acts poorly is "not a REAL Christian" is just employing circular logic to Christianity, making it impossible to have a rational discussion about the merits and drawbacks of religious faith. It starts with an assumption that Christianity is inherently perfect, which is just another matter of blind faith, no matter what evidence may come. Again, don't presume to argue philosophical details if you reject the very premise of critical thinking.

      3. I wouldn't presume to speak about your personal ignorance, but I will say that your arguments are ignorant - ignorant of the basic tenets of critical thinking and the scientific method. And rejecting evolution on faith is pretty ignorant, in face of the evidence - particularly since you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too - reject science, fundamentally, yet grasp selectively at scientific discoveries (such as what you call the "order" in which things were created) in order to justify your irrational faith.

      One is either driven by evidence, drawing conclusions as a result, or one starts with faith-based answers, and accepts or rejects evidence based on how it agrees with one's faith. The two approaches (the former scientific, the latter religious) are incompatible and irreconcilable.

      People who try to straddle the fence end up in great pain, but they don't actually get anywhere.
    • polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Rationalist is correct. Debate Over.

      Thanks I'll be here all week.
  • orientis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Hahahahah... The ad I get at the top of the page is a link to this page : http://ucg.org.au/offers/ev.asp?gclid=CJGT95iGjYkCFSMkWAodVSroBA

    A free creationist pamphlet!
  • kmk2006, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2No other major news agencies are covering this story which means it's probably junk.
  • raid517, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Well as far as these Christians and creationists go - what will they say when man finally succeeds in creating life in the laboratory?

    One day this will happen - it is part of our destiny. In other words, what will happen when one day we unlock they very keys to life itself? Then I think we can finally become as Gods ourselves - and create life in our own image - and the absurdity of religion will be comprehensively and finally defeated.
    • TritonX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Don't underestimate them, they can then say the ingredients were put here by god...
      It may not be as quick as you want, but I'm sure we will evolve and put religion aside.
    • raid517, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's one big huge major nail in the coffin though isn't it?
  • mapkinase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1From TA:

    In a report scheduled for the Dec. 13 issue of the weekly Journal of the American Chemical Society, Martin and Zhang demonstrate

    Now go to

    http://pubs3.acs.org/acs/journals/toc.page?incoden=jacsat

    and search for "Martin". No hits.
  • SLuM, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1You can't be a Christian and believe in evolution, it's one or the other. God created humans and all other animals, there was no evolution involved in the creation story.

    Those are facts, do not even try to refute them. If you don't take the OLD n NEW testament for what their worth, you're not a Christian you're just some theist/deist. As a Christian you MUST believe Jesus is god in flesh and only through him you may gain salvation, now if you believe in evolution you do not believe in the creation story so therefore you do not believe Adam and Eve were cast from paradise, therefore you believe that the Christian God never existed.

    Checkmate.
    • sbrickner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Let's not forget that a fundamental doctrine of most Christian sects is "original sin".

      Because Adam and Eve ate from the tree, they were tainted with this "original sin" - which was automatically inherited by their descendants (which is, apparently, everyone - please ignore the section about angels and giants mating with humans). Yahweh incarnates as Jesus in order to suffer the crucifixion specifically for the reason of granting absolution for this original sin.

      If the Genesis story is allegory, then the crucifixion was unnecessary.

      Of course, it seems like an omnipotent being could have just said "ok, well I forgive them" and been done with it. No need to go through incarnation and crucifixion.

      Oh well, I guess it's pointless to deconstruct mythology. The ignorant will believe it anyway.
  • mapkinase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1First, it has been shown 53 yes ago, that some organic molecules (aminoacids) could be formed spontaneously:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#Miller.27s_experiments

    So this new finding does not add much.
  • mdc777, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Just wait until we find out that we are all really just microbes living on a zit on a giant Alien's ass. Then what?
  • WUThad, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"IF the reverse cycle worked on a lifeless Earth, it COULD HAVE produced the fundamental biochemicals needed for the development of more-advanced biological systems like RNA that COULD reproduce themselves."

    "In a report scheduled for the Dec. 13 issue of the weekly Journal of the American Chemical Society, Martin and Zhang demonstrate that THREE OF THE FIVE chemical reactions in the reverse Krebs cycle worked and produced biomolecules on the surface of a mineral believed to have been present in the waters of the early Earth."

    Very speculative science right now. I was expecting something a little more in depth.

    Also, unless all five of the chemical reactions can be present, this doesn't hold much weight. Yeah, 3 of the 5 are present, but more importantly, 2 are not.
  • bgbs, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Oh shut up already with your evolution articles. This has 0 proof that this is how it all happened. No matter how hard you try to find evidence for evolution, you still have to admit that all this evolution notion is bunch of IMAGINATION of how this is all happened. There is too much evidence against evolution, thats why all these nit-picking by evolutionists always striving to find minimal amount of some kind of evidence, is all crap in my opinion. All these computer animated stuff they show in college science classes on how evolution happened is pure imagination, there is nothing scientific about it. They may claim it is scientific to show these animated graphics, but it is all their preassumptious imagination, nothing more. I've debated with all my teachers, they seemed to read upon it a lot but when I was done debating with them they all said, that we truely dont know how it all happened. Why teach it as ultimate truth if you dont know it happened? Because curriculums require it.
    • nitsuj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You think the only evidence for evolution is in the form of educational computer animated films? Wow, I mean, just _wow_. A gold star for you being super ignorant, congrats. You have won this years the 'fingers in ears, la la la' award.

      Science does not strive to teach ultimate truths. Perhaps if you pulled your beak out of your bible and paid any attention in science classes you might realize this.
  • speedo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@drlog and rationalist

    I like how you think. I am Christian, I get the good stuff from both "side" that you divided (science and religion are both looking for the same thing; truth, but from a different ground). An idea is an idea, truth is truth. If science proofs something, it is not against anything but made up beliefs. I believe in god because I know I had help from "unseen" sources and know people who have very interesting stories. Just to let you know that people do not need a God to explain the unknown or to feel happy.

    Anyway, the reason why I like your comments is that you might be right. What if human recreates universe in the future by destroying it? Maybe one person who caused that "big bang was alone to survive. One more theory, but it might be a result from watching too many sci-fi shows. ;-)
  • Mneitzel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1So much faith in these comments. Look no complete picture drawn here. Lets face it, we are playing Wheel of Fortune here. Taking this piece and this piece to say the entire picture works like this. You can say I as a Christian use God to fill the gaps, but gaps are being filled on the Evolutionary side as well.

    And Dawkins is a religious nut if I ever saw one. He is his god.

    nuff said
    • nitsuj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4There's an important difference. Evolution science is filling the gaps with evidence and knowledge. The religious gap is one of "don't know how, so god did it". They're polar opposites. The god gaps are shrinking all the time.

      Interesting how many religious attackers of science believe the ultimate insult is to say science is based on 'faith' and that it is itself a 'religion', when in fact these are the very attributes that they apparently hold dear! Strange indeed that, even though this is a fallacy, they think it is somehow a bad thing.

      "And Dawkins is a religious nut if I ever saw one."

      Translates to: "Dawkins says a bunch of stuff that I don't like."

      Well, tough.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.