What is Digg?Sponsored by Norton 2010
Cybercrime makes more money than illegal drugs. view!
everyclickmatters.com - See the top masterminds behind the biggest cyberscams ever--and what they cost us all.
138 Comments
- hooah212002, on 01/09/2009, -1/+57This is what I love about science is that no matter what evidence is brought forth, or successful experiments are done, its not enough. Nothing in science is the "end all be all". There is always room for "well, why not this way?" or "why does this or that happen?". As oppoesd to accepting one old ass book as baseless fact.
- Zarokima, on 01/09/2009, -2/+48It gives me a hadron.
- Ziggy7273, on 01/08/2009, -1/+41Wow. It seems obvious that life is inevitable in the universe. To boil it down to the most rudimentary equation, chaos+time=life
- Wawin, on 01/08/2009, -10/+49Dugg for science.
Science gives me a hardon. - Coinspinner, on 01/09/2009, -1/+35now THAT is "Intelligent Design"
- Coinspinner, on 01/09/2009, -1/+20One confusing, rambling, contradictory old ass book that is utterly devoid of anything resembling practical information.
- MacEnvy, on 01/09/2009, -0/+18Pretty sure ID was already dead and buried for anyone not retarded.
And yes, by saying this, I'm implying that Ron Paul is retarded. - inactive, on 01/09/2009, -1/+18No, satan put dinosaur bones in the ground just to tempt us. Is it a coincidence science and satan both begin with an "s"? Jesus says not.
As Kirk Cameron said, "if evolution were real, how come we don't see a species like the croca-duck? (holds up painting of a duck with a crocodile's head)"
Darwin ftw. - brstilson, on 01/09/2009, -0/+16It's life Jim but not as we know it.
- EarlOfLade, on 01/09/2009, -0/+14As I like to remind people about:
"Just because we don't know the answer to a question today, doesn't mean we should stop looking!"
There is probably more left to be discovered than what we have found so far, we just don't know it yet! This is why education and good education into the scientific principles are so important. - Wakkyweed, on 01/09/2009, -0/+14Isn't this kind of like the nail in the coffin for the Intelligent Design theory? They always claim that science can't explain the beginning of life, but this seems to be about as close to proto-life as you can get.
- ousthouse, on 01/09/2009, -1/+13they poured coke on a tooth in a petri dish.
- Zarimus, on 01/09/2009, -0/+11Who created God? If God needed no creator, then adding God to your argument is adding needless complexity, just say the Universe needed no creator.
- inactive, on 01/09/2009, -0/+10"evolutionists" is a stupid term used by stupid people to make a straw man out of evolutionary biologists, painting them as religious and just as irrational as the creationists.
There is no argument on this stuff. Scientists aren't debating whether or not evolution is the case or not because it most certainly is.
A scientific "theory" is something which must explain ALL the evidence without being contradicted by ANY of it. If there is any evidence which contradicts a scientific theory, it is thrown out. Gravity, after all, is still a scientific theory. - Joeymarshmallow, on 01/09/2009, -2/+12Yeah, I know we've all been biting our nails waiting for an entirely gas ecosystem.
- inactive, on 01/09/2009, -1/+10Apparently so does the Enter key.
- keeganspeck, on 01/09/2009, -0/+9Am I right in thinking that this article is one of the most revolutionary successes we've heard about in years? This is incredible. This is such a huge win for our knowledge of where we came from.
- desertDenizen, on 01/09/2009, -1/+9"Some type of self-replicating molecule likely proceeded RNA and what this was is the big unknown at this point."
... see Stuart Kaufman's description of autocatalytic chemical/protein networks in his book, "At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity." Awesome stuff, a roadmap for solving one of the most fundamental questions in science. Synthetic life from non-life will happen in our lifetimes. - inactive, on 01/09/2009, -0/+8similarly, Tragedy + Time = Comedy
- Jensaarai, on 01/09/2009, -0/+8You might want to think twice before accusing anyone *else* of being incoherent.
Just a friendly tip. - muffcakes, on 01/09/2009, -1/+9A videotape of life spontaneously starting and then proceeding to evolve present day organisms wouldn't be a nail in the coffin for ID. ID isn't about understanding the universe we exist in, it's about living in a world as you imagine it based on peer consensus and whim.
- LittleDas, on 01/09/2009, -0/+8It's not life in the sense that life has a very precise and stringent definition. However, the general scientific consensus is that on the road to life from simple chemicals there was probably some period of self organizing, self replicating chemicals. The ability to reproduce such a scenario in the lab actually does much to support the point that life might be able to spring from nothing.
Finally, you probably are using a specific definition of evolution that applies only to "life" and "cells." There is little doubt that viruses evolve so asserting that evolution can only apply to classically defined life is unhelpful. - wcaclimbing, on 01/09/2009, -0/+7I for one welcome our new self-replicating molecular overlords.
- pantweasel, on 01/09/2009, -0/+7Science FTW.
- toxicshok, on 01/09/2009, -0/+6IT BEGINS!
- b33x, on 01/09/2009, -1/+7+ Evolution?
- takamalak, on 01/09/2009, -1/+7In answer to your question, we* did.
* We = we, collectively, as humans. - RobotBuddha, on 01/09/2009, -0/+6That might be why there's the big NOT LIFE in the description.
- muffcakes, on 01/09/2009, -0/+6God is a false idol often worshiped in place of the noodly one.
- jhshukla, on 01/09/2009, -0/+6and all this time I thought life + time = chaos.
- LittleDas, on 01/09/2009, -0/+6Ducks = fermions
Geese = quarks
do the math. - inactive, on 01/09/2009, -3/+9Particle physics give me a hadron.
- drstock, on 01/09/2009, -2/+7Maybe you should learn about the difference between evolution and abiogenesis before you event start trying to criticize either of them?
- LittleDas, on 01/09/2009, -0/+5Alright, so I got around to reading the article and I guess I just recapped some of the major points. Which makes me wonder why you're saying what you're saying. Presumably you wouldn't go ahead and flame before you even read the article...
/FaithInHumanity - jtbandes, on 01/09/2009, -0/+5But wait, they're both true! By this logic, time = 0! life = chaos! The universe makes sense now! You're a genius!
- muffcakes, on 01/09/2009, -0/+5muffcakes = wtf
- fyngyrz, on 01/09/2009, -1/+6Synthetic life from non-life has already happened. You're an example of it. Unfortunately, in your case, you're not smart enough to realize that. That's the process. You get some good ones, you get some dimwits. Generally speaking, the good ones breed with each other, leaving the dimwits to do the same, and a performance gap develops that makes it difficult for the dimwits to survive. That process (survival pressure on the dimwits), interestingly enough, has been interfered with... and now we have you.
Go watch the first three minutes of the movie "Idiocracy", and all will be revealed in terms you can understand. - Disgod, on 01/09/2009, -0/+5"When the basic building blocks run out, can the chemicals change to live off of the stuff its environment is full of afterwards?"
Considering that back when life first started the earth was a giant cauldron of organic chemicals, on the order of hundreds of billions of tons of organic chemicals (Think a warmer version of Titan, which is swamped in organic chemicals), I think life had plenty of the basic building blocks to use and wouldn't have to worry about running out for a long time, and by then life would have been able to prey on other forms of life. Oh and then there is chemosynthesis, the ability to process molecules to get energy out of them, molecules like Carbon Dioxide, and methane, so once the simple building blocks were gone, there were other sources of energy.
"Blue-green algae, hydrogen, oxygen, and the stories of life's beginnings on earth should tell you this isn't life."
Cyanobacteria appeared over a billion years after the first life, so I really don't understand how it has anything to do with life's origins.
Oh and as RobotBuddha said, it isn't life, and they didn't claim it is, just that it may resemble the simple self replicating molecules which were the precursors to life emerging. - Disgod, on 01/09/2009, -0/+5If you believe that is what IDers believe then you really have no clue about the ID movement. They most definitely do not accept evolution.
- KiraDnote, on 01/09/2009, -0/+4What missing link are you referring to? Isn't it clear that nothing magical happens to turn non-living molecules into living cells? There is no difference between living and non-living atoms/molecules/neurons. It doesn't make any sense to believe that non-sentient sub-atomic particles can somehow be assembled to create a sentient organism. Or maybe you think that the transition from non-sentient to sentient involves some kind of divine spark which is extinguished when an organism disintegrates. Have you considered that life itself is a basic element of the universe and is omnipresent. Intelligence exists in everything.
- inactive, on 01/09/2009, -0/+4What could go wrong?
- Killphibian, on 01/09/2009, -0/+4That's not the point. The person setting such life in motion would basically be playing the role of the universe, which is not alive.
- Metasquares, on 01/09/2009, -0/+4That wasn't what they demonstrated here, however. They took enzymes already present in life and observed them behaving lifelike outside of living cells too. This is definitely an important result, as it indicates that these enzymes have the capacity to behave like life even in the absence of cells, but it isn't quite the missing link yet.
- hooah212002, on 01/09/2009, -0/+4After rereading my statement, it almost sounds negative towards science. What I meant to get across was how they were so humble about this amazing discovery and realize that it does NOT answer ALL the questions, even though it gives us a bloody good idea.....based on FACTS!!!
- grungegbunny, on 01/09/2009, -0/+4lazybuoy is a lazythinkr.
- PutSCIENCEfirst, on 01/09/2009, -0/+4Please show source of evidence that this is fake. Or is it your religion/dogma?
People in power? I wish scientists had the power; something would really get done, by using reason!
They wouldn't discount something based on what mommy taught them long before they could understand.
Every time a Creationist sees some possible evidence that might disprove their own theories, sadly, they stop their own and greatly needed search for the truth.
That's why science/scientists win(s). They continue to research, seek, debate, and theorize, arriving at oftentimes erroneous conclusions, but their progress over time, has resulted in literally every single thing you see and use today. - zeabu, on 01/09/2009, -0/+4It's not alive.. in the way we know. Maybe it is, we don't know that yet.
- danj484, on 01/09/2009, -1/+5Psamtik = bad at science.
- Ziggy7273, on 01/09/2009, -1/+5@Diggum85
If by "scientist" you mean the fundamental forces of the universe. Gravity, the weak and strong forces and the electromagnetic force then yes that is what seems to create order out of chaos. Where did these forces come from? It's impossible to know at this point. I personally speculate that our universe is a facet of a larger higher dimensional space. At that point it is again up to speculation. Are the fundamental properties of our universe a subset of the fundamental properties of this higher dimensional space or are they a construct of an intelligence residing in that dimension?
But if by "scientist" you mean Jesus's dad then wake up. - Zarokima, on 01/09/2009, -0/+4I so hope you're being sarcastic.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 141 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is