What is Digg?62 Comments
- evilawesome, on 11/08/2009, -5/+32WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW.
- Disgod, on 11/08/2009, -3/+30I'm still rooting for we were all created 15 minutes ago by the great invisible purple space duck who is now hiding in orbit around Saturn and everything we think we know she placed into our minds and made the entire universe look as if it was the scientific answers which were correct. AND YOU CAN'T DISPROVE ME!! AHAH that must mean I'm right!
/s - Gibletoid, on 11/08/2009, -2/+23Extreme conditions might be ale to produce these building blocks, however this is far from the proof that we weren't grown in vats by aliens and deposited here like sea monkeys.
- evilawesome, on 11/08/2009, -4/+24in a fairytale book published by an extremely profitable and socially repressive book club?
- arcooke, on 11/08/2009, -3/+17Creationists deserve to be made fun of. All the time, regardless of the time, place or subject at hand.
Anyone willingly stupid enough to reject solid, irrefutable scientific research over a 2000 year old book chock full of inconsistencies, contradictions and proven falsehoods has it coming.
Have a nice day! - ericthesalmon, on 11/08/2009, -0/+13This is not the first synthesis of uracil in a lab, we've been able to do that for a very long time.
This is merely the first demonstration of uracil being created by abiotic processes in a situation that might occur naturally, just presenting a possible source of one of the organic compounds that would eventually come together and learn to replicate. - the8thbit, on 11/08/2009, -0/+12Those are pretty big words for you, eh?
- evilawesome, on 11/08/2009, -1/+13i am primarily jokingly furthering an internet meme, but on a more serious note i would say that when we can fully replicate life from scratch, mimicking the abiotic conditions that were present in the early universe, theists will be much harder pressed to make their case.
kind of like, "yes, i am covered in powder, the oven is still warm, and there is clearly evidence that a cake was recently made in this kitchen, but i am telling you that it was a supernatural explosion that made this cake just like it was thirty seconds ago." - Intercon, on 11/08/2009, -1/+13FTA: "Nobody really understands how life got started on Earth. Our experiments demonstrate that once the Earth formed, many of the building blocks of life were likely present from the beginning. Since we are simulating universal astrophysical conditions, the same is likely wherever planets are formed,” explained Sandford.
Are we perhaps beginning to see how the conditions for life are hardwired into the greater system? The mixing of stellar clouds of dust, swirling through radiation storms giving rise to basic complex molecules used in cellular communications and the most basic definition of life: wonderfully shocking ideas. If true, what an incredibly intricate Universe we live in. I would go so far as to say that the Universe seems positively life-giving. I like the idea of a tenuously sentient Universe that nurtures not individual lives as much as the power of life to seed and to disperse.
What an exciting time in science. - Disgod, on 11/08/2009, -0/+12That's rather interesting, because it might add support to the RNA world hypothesis. We've already figured out how other nucleic acids could form in the early solar system/on the early Earth.
- qxrt, on 11/08/2009, -0/+9..."reproduce a building block of life for the first time"? The title seems awfully sensationalistic...
- Mercedes383, on 11/08/2009, -1/+10No matter how small the chance is, the fact is that these combinations happining are indeed probable. Actually, the likelyhood that these base building blocks don't combine in a manner to form replicating substances is improbable given the timespans involved.
- Disgod, on 11/08/2009, -0/+8Considering we've made other building blocks of life for a very long time, and have already found the building blocks for life in asteroids which were rich with amino acids and other wonderful things, it is rather sensationalist to claim that it is the first time. It is the first time for this component, but not the first building block.
- Disgod, on 11/08/2009, -0/+8Hcharger, you're right. I wasn't one of the people who did these experiments, but there is one really important factor that you must understand. If I wanted to I could REPLICATE the exact same results. That's how science works, you have to be able to replicate your results. The scientists who ran these experiments will even give you the exact directions on how to do it as well, in fact that's part of the whole peer review process. In fact, other scientists demand that they are able to replicate the results.
As for your issue of my use of the word "we", I was using it, as DavidTC so excellently said, to describe humanity. We, humanity, can do this science, we know this scientific fact now.
And once again, all you can do is provide your personal, uneducated, foundationally biased opinion, not fact and your lame attempts at trying to use the bible to prove the bible. As I've said before, using the bible to prove the bible is like trying to prove Harry Potter and magic were real by citing the Harry Potter series as evidence that they existed. Where is your evidence that these scientists are being deceitful? Which parts are they being deceitful about? Could you please come up with a demonstrable lie about the theory of evolution?
I have been asking you to back up your statement with actual facts and you have not once managed to do that. All you have been able to do is quote your bible and yammer on about how evolution is wrong, and make the claim that hundreds of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years have all been lying without ever actually providing any specific examples. - the8thbit, on 11/08/2009, -1/+9Behind the couch?
- inactive, on 11/08/2009, -0/+8Abiogenesis FTW
- pwn247, on 11/08/2009, -1/+8Quite possibly the first evidence-driven key to the history of our current position in the space-time continuum.
- DaviDTC, on 11/08/2009, -0/+7WE as in humans. Are you not part of us? Us as in humans again. Figured you needed an explanation of what 'us' meant.
- Arkveld, on 11/08/2009, -1/+8One step closer to scientists being able to produce life in a lab. Still not anywhere in the foreseeable future though.
- DaviDTC, on 11/08/2009, -1/+7I hope you aren't suggesting that our existence has always been explained because it says so in a book with no evidence.
- Mercedes383, on 11/08/2009, -1/+7@Skinturtle
The Theory of Evolution is indeed science and thus is held to scientific scrutiny. It is also a falsifiable theory in accordance with standard scientific practice. I.E. Finding something like rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian will falsify the Theory of Evolution. I can asure you that there is no 'Making up'. There is often hypothesis, but there is certainly no conjecture.
As to the Big Bang Theory, that is about as hardcore science as one can get. It combines both experimental, observational and theoretical fields employing a vast range of disciplines. - brickwall99, on 11/08/2009, -2/+8"Same place he always is."
In your head. I stopped having imaginary friends when I was 8.
Now is a good time for you to stop. - Disgod, on 11/08/2009, -0/+5"What's the use in explaining existence?"
Well, at the most basic level, cuz it's ***** cool. But other than that it is sometimes extremely profitable to look into these radical areas of research. Sometimes it is a spin-off technology from the search itself, other times it might give us a new avenue of technological research which could lead to some interesting new technologies.
"Does it give you super powers or 80 virgins?"
No, but it does help us minimize their political power when we can educate people and show them that the various sky daddies of religion are just superstitious garbage, and that reality is understandable. - zakatov, on 11/08/2009, -0/+4We already know RNA came first based on study of extinct and extant organisms (bacteria, viruses, etc.), this is important because it gives us an idea of how it could have formed from non-organic sources.
- Younomysteez, on 11/08/2009, -0/+4@ skinturtle
"I understand science...but the theory of evolution is not science"
- Second half of that statement makes it clear you dont understand science. Understanding science doesn't mean taking it in high school or reading wikipedia.
"You guys call anything a fact regardless of what it is"
- Isn't just quoting the bible good enough for you guys? Dam, i think "our" standards are at least higher than that, You know, experiments and observations and peer review and all that other good stuff.
And opposite to what you may think, "Doubt" is what make science progress, because without that doubt we'd all be reading the bible over and over again happily without questioning it. You could use a little doubt.
Please use real examples and arguments instead. And i hope your not going to rely on the classic transitional fossils excuse. - jusjus, on 11/08/2009, -0/+4I bet it tastes delicious.
- brickwall99, on 11/08/2009, -1/+5"and somehow these nucleic acids came together in a 1 in a trillion chance to create the protein combinations necessary to produce life?"
Yup. Given enough time almost anything is possible.
You do understand how science works right? - SomeCallMeBruce, on 11/08/2009, -2/+5I suppose the next question that Creationist are going to ask is how the pyrimidine got there in the first place.
Let me guess. Must have been God, right? Pyrimidine doesn't just synthesize itself, you know. - inajeep, on 11/08/2009, -1/+4It is closer to explaining what happened than someone seeing a religious figure in a grilled cheese sandwidch.
- gordonj, on 11/09/2009, -0/+31 in a trillion, eh? Can you show how you worked this out? I'm sure you've forgotten several important things in your calculation like;
several quadrillion chemical reactions in parallel, > 4 billion years of complex chemical reactions, selection, and of course most importantly the fact that working out the probability of something that has already occurred in order to try to argue its validity is erroneous statistically. You wouldn't flick a coin a hundred times then say that the chances of the specific results you got are so unlikely (1 in 7.8 x 10^31) that it's basically impossible that you actually flipped that pattern to begin with.
It's always funny to see someone who doesn't understand probability trying to use it to argue a point in error. - Disgod, on 11/08/2009, -0/+3Yes, very true. This study is just filling in another part of the puzzle. We understand the RNA world is more than likely the correct answer, but now we can say, "We've now figured out how and where all the ingredients came from", which is an important step.
- joker2459, on 11/08/2009, -0/+3HA! another fact supporting the theory that RNA came before DNA! Now we need to figure how how to make Adenine, guanine and cytosine non biologically... or at least by using long chains of RNA containing Uracil o.O wonder how long that will take
- Endeavour3d, on 11/08/2009, -0/+3I really wish for once, an article about science or history could be brought up without a discussion on religion, either for or against, and instead we focus on the article itself and the effects the discovery will have on our culture, I'm so tired of religion ruining every discussion.
- Arkveld, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2You can't produce clones from scratch, you need DNA and an egg in cloning in a lab .(opposed to ocurring naturally in nature)
- kspanks04, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2When intelligent beings replicate life from scratch it still won't carry much weight to theists. To them its just an example of intelligent design. There are still plenty of gaps in our understanding of our existence - that's where god is and will probably always be.
@DaviDTC
Did I say anything remotely close to that? - ericthesalmon, on 11/08/2009, -1/+3Hmm, not even the first time it's been made in abiotic conditions, apparently uracil came out of the original Miller-Urey experiment and also the versions with updated conditions.
- ericthesalmon, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2Although this paper doesn't advance us towards that goal in any way, science is closer than you think because Craig Venter is a mystical sorcerer.
- void, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2yes please?
- Catchpen, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2I for one..
- ConnerWoods, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2You never said anything about producing from scratch.
- Younomysteez, on 11/08/2009, -0/+1Ya thats what i thought too. What makes this so special? Maybe the radiation part of it. Since young earth didnt have a protective cover its possible that extraterrestial radiation had a big role in the creation of these necessary molecule and others. Pretty cool stuff.
- Younomysteez, on 11/08/2009, -0/+1So true. Im so tired of religion ruining ..everything.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 11/08/2009, -9/+10But- but- muh bible sez dats UNPOSSIBLE!!!
- bobbi21, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1@wake "you call 1 in a trillion probable?"
In terms of molecules you call that improbable? Number of molecules in a cup of water. 7.5x10^24. That's 7.5 trillion trillion. 1 in a trillion odds is pretty much a sure fire thing when dealing with these amounts. - Whatasillyhat, on 11/08/2009, -0/+1So you jealous, petty, megalomaniac, genocidal, infanticidal, proprietor of slavery , omnipotent, omniscient, ruler-of-all-that-we-know-and-ever-will god will have absolutely no problems or try to intervene at the point when humans produce life for themselves and control it to their whim like....creators?
Your god got pissed at humans building a tower to the heavens and flipped out, his reaction was to make it difficult for people to communicate which made universal teamwork a chore. I don't suppose he's going to take too kindly to this.
Then again, I guess we'll all be judged at death, seeing how god has mysteriously taken a back seat for the last 2000+ years that silly sausage.
Funny thing is, if we ever do create life we'll.almost certainly treat our creation/s with a lot more respect than your god did. - reticulate, on 11/08/2009, -1/+2Semantics, but Conner won that round.
- reticulate, on 11/08/2009, -2/+3You're confusing Evolution with Abiogenesis.
You guys tend to do that a lot. - aolley, on 11/08/2009, -0/+1what if there was an organism with base ratios that had much higher [A], that could mean they had much higher [U] this could be useful if they lived in a colder environment
-
Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is