Scientists Create RNA From Primordial Soup 369
Kristina at Science News writes "The RNA world hypothesis proposed 40 years ago suggested that life on Earth started not with DNA but with RNA. Now a team of scientists bolsters this hypothesis, having assembled RNA in the lab from a mixture that resembles what was likely the primordial soup. 'Until now,' Science News reports, 'scientists couldn't figure out the chemical reactions that created the earliest RNA molecules.' The new work started the RNA assembly chemistry from a different angle than what earlier work had tried."
Abiogenesis.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Abiogenesis.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One word.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That they accidentally got RNA and thought they created it themselves? Did you read the article?
âoeBut while this is a step forward, itâ(TM)s not the whole picture,â Ferris points out. âoeItâ(TM)s not as simple as putting compounds in a beaker and mixing it up. Itâ(TM)s a series of steps. You still have to stop and purify and then do the next step, and that probably didnâ(TM)t happen in the ancient world.â
Sutherland and his team can so far make RNA molecules with two different bases, and there are still another two bases to figure out.
Re:One word.... (Score:4, Insightful)
... and holy Unicode-less Slashdot, Batman. :-(
Re:Ignoratio Elenchi (Score:5, Insightful)
Demonstrating (something) does not demonstrate the non-existence of an intelligent designer.
Indeed; nothing can.
Re:Ignoratio Elenchi (Score:3, Insightful)
Demonstrating that another link in the evolutionary chain can happen without conscious intervention (spontaneously and mechanically) does not demonstrate the non-existence of an intelligent designer.
As a logician, what are your thoughts on the minimum description-length principle? The MDL principle suggests that it's a mistake to add a God to the equation if there's no specific need for one.
Re:not that big of a deal (Score:5, Insightful)
they found a reaction pathway - that does not prove it happened that way - I too thought the article title indicated spontaneous generation of RNA from primordial soup.
I have always thought that spontaneous was the wrong word for this theory. Spontaneous implies *NO* external force. There could have been (I think there probably was) forces such as comets, lava, boiling water, glass, wind, fire, water, and mixture of those or just about anything else. To show that it is possible, with what was known to exist at that time is not proof that it happened exactly that way, but it could have. And I highly doubt we will ever figure out how it actually happened.
Misleading Article Title (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Abiogenesis.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ignoratio Elenchi (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it wouldn't settle anything. Any being sufficiently more powerful than you can convince you that it is omnipotent. Any being sufficiently more clever than you could convince you that it is omniscient. An advanced alien race, claiming to be God, could determine who believes in God and who doesn't, and rain sulfur and fire on the nonbelievers, so a rain of fire and sulfur from something claiming to be God would not prove God exists, sorry.
Re:Ignoratio Elenchi (Score:2, Insightful)
"does not demonstrate the non-existence of an intelligent designer."
Of course. That's because nothing can prove the non-existence of a sufficiently powerful intelligent designer. When Newton proposed that universal gravitation could predict the motion of the planets, did that prevent the Hand of God itself, or some other immensely powerful intelligent designer, from actively guiding the planets around in their orbits in accordance with what we perceive as gravitation?
No. But that's because it is not really a scientific question in the first place.
And that's the whole problem with "intelligent design". There's really no scientific observation that can negate it if that is how broadly it is defined. Even if you try to appeal to "incompetent design", like some of the crazy, Rube Goldberg-like features of living systems, such that it looks like life was tweaked and tinkered with by re-using old designs for new purposes rather than inventing something brand new, you could still claim that a "designer" meant to do all that for some arcane reason. They could "coincidentally" make it look like the product of biological evolution. An "intelligent designer" of that class (i.e. not bound by the same sort of physical laws as us) is practically impossible to scientifically test.
So, yeah, it "does not demonstrate the non-existence of an intelligent designer", but so what? Nothing ever will. It's always possible to imagine a designer powerful enough to explain absolutely anything, which is why it is so useless as a scientific explanation in its generic form. If you can place some practical limits on what the designer can or can not do (e.g., if you're stuck with only a human designer), then maybe you might be able to start doing something scientific (e.g., differentiating stone tools from ordinary rocks), but you can't scientifically test "intelligent designer" in some general fashion. If you allow "snap their fingers to do anything", then all bets are off, and you aren't operating in a scientific realm of study anymore.
And you call yourself a logician?
Re:not that big of a deal (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:One word.... (Score:1, Insightful)
So in other words: Even more chance of contamination.
No. Even less chance of contamination, because until you reach the final step ANY contamination would cause an immediate failure of the process.
Re:Ignoratio Elenchi (Score:4, Insightful)
If God exists, and if he's omniscient and omnipotent, he could design an event guaranteed to convince every non-believer in the world of his existence. The fact that he doesn't means either:
a) he doesn't care, so why bother worshiping him?
b) he doesn't exist, so why bother worshiping him?
c) he likes to play mind games, so why bother worshiping him?
Re:Abiogenesis.... (Score:3, Insightful)
1) A bunch of scientists who know what RNA looks like found a complex way or mixing and meshing chemicals together and purifying the process then repeating until they artificially created RNA.
2) They admit it wouldn't have worked in nature on its own...
3) People suddenly claim it disproves ID. Hell, all they DID was PROVE ID. The whole fucking article says "we, a bunch of intelligent people, used advanced chemistry to make something that we admit wouldn't have occurred on its own." That IS ID.
Re:Ignoratio Elenchi (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmmm couldn't convince Kirk:
"What does God need with a starship?"
Re:Abiogenesis.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Abiogenesis.... Take that ID-iots!
I'm not an ID proponent at all and I realize you're at least half-joking, but this research finding doesn't do anything to disprove ID. In fact, if anything it somewhat favors it. ID asserts that there are certain aspects of the universe and life forms that require a directed force by an intelligent being. IOW, it requires planning. This research demonstrates that a lot of steps and manipulation that are NOT present in nature, were required to end up with RNA. It didn't happen "naturally". Ergo, "intelligent design" was required to create it.
Re:Ignoratio Elenchi (Score:2, Insightful)
d) YOU like to play mind games by laying out ridiculously narrow terms for god to demonstrate his existence.
Thinking that there is no possible evidence for god's existence is retarded and only demonstrates how little ability the person saying it has for stepping back and looking at the situation. Life is complex and it works well. It's not proof, it's evidence. The laws of physics yield a consistent universe. It's not proof, it's evidence.
The ability of otherwise intelligent people to skew this issue by calling the other side stupid and saying PROVE this (which is impossible for both sides) never ceases to annoy and amuse the hell out of me.
Re:Ignoratio Elenchi (Score:4, Insightful)
Capital-I-capital-D Intelligent Design is a political movement based on getting anti-evolution viewpoints brought into science curricula.
The mere belief in a God who created and designed the universe is not what this is about. If it were, then every religious scientist would call themselves IDers. It's not, and they don't.
These people are not interested in logic. If they were, they would know that the burden of proof was on them and not the other way around.
Trifecta! (Score:5, Insightful)
You just made three unsupported and ridiculous assertions as if they were a logical argument. Nice hat trick.
Religion does not need to rely on faith. Buddhism certainly doesn't, but I know some consider that a philosophy, not a religion. Still, it is listed as a major world religion, and it requires no one to take anything on faith.
Predestination and free will are both pointless human speculations unsupported by any human experiences, and if free will were real, it would be a curse, not a gift, especially considering your God's planned punishments for going against arbitrary rules that you have no way of knowing came from Him.
If God were to be in residence and free will were real, God's presence would not diminish free will. So what? At most, nobody would choose to sin anymore. I don't choose to froom, either, and my not being able to choose to froom does not diminish any free will I may have.
But people could still choose to sin knowing God existed, I know I would, just to register my disapproval of God's arbitrary and unjust actions. Infinite punishment for finite transgressions, my ass. Fuck you, God, I'm going out to fuck a guy JUST TO PISS YOU OFF, YOU SHIT! I'm not even gay, I'll probably hate it, but I'm going to do it just because you said you'd torture me forever if I did. I don't negotiate with terrorists.
Re:Ignoratio Elenchi (Score:1, Insightful)
Your idea of religion relies on faith, but the higher goal of saving people has nothing to do with faith.
God revealing himself in an indisputable manner probably would end religion, and millions more people would be saved in return. Why would that be a bad thing?
Re:Ignoratio Elenchi (Score:4, Insightful)
The mistake people typically make is to stop here and imagine that the odds of existence of a god or gods are therefore equal with the non-existence of same.
The fact is, nobody can prove or disprove that the earth is filled with magical pink unicorns that simply move, scale back in size a little, and make some dirt for us to play in when we dig or deploy sensors. If you dig or scan for them, you won't find them. They're magical. You can't disprove them, and you can't prove them, either.
So now, is there a reasonable place to stand to trumpet that you have faith that these magical pink unicorns exist?
No.
And that is precisely the reason that the argument about proof or disproof of God(s) brings absolutely no validity to any religious claim.
We have, for various reasons, developed a tool called "science" that allows us to determine some general behaviors about the universe. We can apply the resulting tests and rules to ideas (yes, even ideas about Gods) in order to see if they are rational ideas.
When we do this to the magical unicorns, they rather quickly fail the test and we will immediately discard the idea.
A mentally healthy human being, not injured by lack of data, and/or gullibility, and/or fear of the unknown, will apply these same tests and rules to God(s), and discard the idea(s) just as quickly, and for precisely the same reasons as the idea of the magical pink unicorns.
Vulnerability to religion (diagram) [wordpress.com]
Evidence of what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Life is complex and it works well. It's not proof, it's evidence. The laws of physics yield a consistent universe. It's not proof, it's evidence.
Both of these things are only evidence of themselves. Nothing more. You cannot logically extrapolate these things into anything more than they are without direct evidence of something more. No matter how much evidence the universe gives of its own existence, it does not point to anything beyond that, be it God or invisible unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters, sauce be upon him, or anything else. The current body of evidence points only to its own existence.
If you want to posit the existence of God, based on the evidence provided by the universe, then you need direct evidence of God (well, you also need a clear, falsifiable definition of God). Otherwise, Occam's Razor gives us the more likely conclusion. Given the same body of evidence, the simpler explanation tends to be the correct explanation, unless more evidence appears to show otherwise.
In this case, the body of evidence: The universe.
- H0.) The universe just exists.
- H1.) The universe exists because God created it. God just exists.
Given the same body of evidence, H0 is the more likely explanation, and there is no REASON to assume H1 without further evidence.
While you cannot prove a negative, in science, lack of evidence for H1 is provisional evidence for H0. Also, any scientist knows that you can NEVER prove anything based on observation. You can only disprove it OR decrease the likelihood of its falseness.
NB: Most of the "you" in this post is the general "you" not a specific "you" to the parent post.
Re:Ignoratio Elenchi (Score:5, Insightful)
Only someone who believes in god would see those as evidence of god. Don't feel bad though. Your ape hierarchical mind is probably hardwired to believe in god. Believing in hierarchy is good for the group.
Re:Trifecta! (Score:5, Insightful)
Brahma and the Divas are Hinduism, not Buddhism. Buddha explicitly said, "Don't believe anything anyone tells you, even me, unless it agrees with your logic and understanding of the world."
Capitalizing 'Free Will' does not make it apparent. Free will (if it exists) is a curse, because we have no way of distinguishing God's will from that of a charlatan posing as the voice of God, be that voice internal or external. Supposedly, God judges us by these rules that we have no way of verifying. Punishes us infinitely, according to some faiths. We have to 'take it on faith' but we could be taking the word of an impostor, a false God, and thus doomed by the real God's rules.
Look, I understand what you've been taught. You don't need to explain it to me, it isn't as though I haven't given it serious consideration. I'm just not buying that the world works in any way remotely related to the way you think it does.
Don't take it as an insult, in my way of looking at things, being deluded is just another state of mind. It isn't good or bad, it just is.
You don't even acknowledge or respond to my arguments, I don't know why I bother. Oh yes, because I like doing this. I have no way of knowing for sure that I am not the deluded one, so I always listen. But to believe in God, I would have to rearrange so many of my ideas, I don't even know where I would begin at this point.
Re:Ignoratio Elenchi (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're genuinely asking this question and want some answers send me a msg : )
Re:Ignoratio Elenchi (Score:5, Insightful)
d)it's a test of faith.
No, that's not d), that's just c)he likes to play mind games, so why bother worshiping him?
"tests of faith" are idiotic mind games. What sort of a worthwhile supreme beings gives us good brains with the ability to reason and only rewards the people who are complete failures?
Obviously a only sleazebag beneath our contempt.
The OP covered all possible possibilities.
Re:Ignoratio Elenchi (Score:2, Insightful)
d) What's the point of faith if he just proves to everyone he exists?
No, the question is what's the point of faith. The only point in it is for the benefit of the scumbags telling the idiots that there really are magical invisible fairies. That's the only reason religion requires faith. Were there actually a god, he'd never have been so fucking stupid as to utterly fail to ever provide a single scrap of evidence for his existence which he clearly has never done....well, unless it amuses him to see so many tortured and murdered by the weak willed cowards and fools who follow delusional people. If that's the case, then I'm still far too good for such a whiny little shitbag.
Re:Ignoratio Elenchi (Score:3, Insightful)
Just to add: this is called a non-falsifiable theory [wikipedia.org].
Bender!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Trifecta! (Score:3, Insightful)
Buddhists often adopt the beliefs of other cultures. Hinduism developed the belief in karma and reincarnation. Buddhism reinterpreted that belief to refer to the individual moments of our lives.
A sense impression arrives at the 'sense gates,' an abstract way of looking at a part of pre-consciousness. Notable sense impressions, as determined by 'previous life karma,' otherwise known as the value judgments we have placed on previous moments, are promoted towards consciousness.
The sense impression (including sensation of thought forms, such as 'self,' 'other,' and 'banana split.') begins to become a conscious moment. Value judgments, if any, are applied and the moment is quickly reinterpreted in light of those judgments. The reinterpreted moment is then presented to the consciousness construct, which usually judges it according to a sort of mental virus comprised of a series of rules, a judge, and a criminal/victim. This is the generation of 'current life karma.'
Placing a value judgment of 'Unimportant' at this point is just harmful as placing a 'Good' or 'Bad' value judgment on the moment, because it essentially erases the moment from consciousness, and the presumptions that underlie thinking this moment was important enough to raise to consciousness in the first place, and then NOT important, essentially cancel out.
The judge reads from the book of the rules, sentences, and punishes the victim (i.e. a part of you.) The punishment you choose to keep inflicting on yourself because a mental virus told you to is 'future life karma.'
You are free to stop participating in this cycle during the 'present life karma' part of it, instead of creating more karma: positive, negative, or neutral; but that is really hard to do and takes lots of practice to do continually.
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's apply that logic to the first sighting of sperm fertilizing an egg.
1. Laboratory conditions. Check.
2. "The new findings suggest a possible method for traits to be passed from both mother and father to child..." Check.
3. Proof that babies come from sex. Not a chance.
4. Someone with a time machine that can verify that my mother would degrade herself like that? Nope.
Fertilization still remains philosophical at best, NOT science.
Re:I thought... (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that we have shown that it can happen tends to support the hypothesis that it did happen, because we know that RNA is a part of all living things on Earth and we know that it had to come from somewhere.
Unless you have a better explanation, one that fits into a naturalistic framework as that is the framework within which science exists.
Re:I thought... (Score:4, Insightful)
Keep in mind that the people you're arguing with are the same people who, despite countless examples that sex can lead to pregnancy, and zero examples of virgins getting pregnant, still believe Mary was a virgin.
It's quite clear that these are not people who believe in evidence supporting hypotheses.
Re:I thought... (Score:4, Insightful)
Keep in mind that the people you're arguing with are the same people who, despite countless examples that sex can lead to pregnancy, and zero examples of virgins getting pregnant, still believe Mary was a virgin.
It's quite clear that these are not people who believe in evidence supporting hypotheses.
Actually, there have been examples of virgins getting pregnant, but not without exposure to sperm.
</nitpick>
Re:Trifecta! (Score:4, Insightful)
From another point of view, the sane scientifical point of view, free will cannot coexist with physical laws either. Any physical law binds events together forcing an outcome. If the grand unification theory [wikipedia.org] is unveiled it will bind all events occurring in the universe together. Thus any action has an expected reaction. This of course means that everything we humans do would be mere reactions to ourselves and our surroundings. Thus with enough information I would be able to "force" any human into doing whatever I please. And the fact that I "chose" to do so would be a mere reaction to another input forged by someone/something else. The controversy of this is of course that if proven it means that no human is liable for any action and that destiny does infact exist. The cool part is that this would render timetraveling into the future no longer impossible due to the uncertainty of the future, however other laws might still kill the theory.
Re:Abiogenesis.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, what this research demonstrates is that with the basic components, it IS possible to create RNA.
The research in no way proclaims to have found the way in which RNA was created in nature. It only proves that, without making any claims as to method, it is possible.
I do not believe that they claim that they have found the -ONLY- way in which RNA can be created based on the raw components.
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're conflating an event with a process. The process of abiogenesis (generating life from non-living matter) is a perfectly valid scientific field, of which this experiment was a part.
The event(s) in the past that are hypothesised to be the initiation of life on the planet are a related, but ultimately independent claim that despite your objection can also be investigated scientifically. Learning about the processes of generating life from non living matter are simply a necessary precursor to investigating the actual event of the origin of life on the earth.
You don't need a time machine to scientifically establish past events. You simply need to be able to investigate the evidence that exists today. Applying your rationale to your own beliefs about the origin of life: presumably you have none since you don't have a time machine to travel back and see it for yourself. Presumably you believe that the claims of creationists are inherently empty, since they don't have a time machine to travel back and view the garden of eden for themselves.
Re:Trifecta! (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, but it is logical (when arguing these things, you must realise that there is an answer for everything...:) ). To repeat summarized from the link you haven't yet read, Love requires free will or it is not love. Free will without consequences is not free. If God desires his creation to love him, he must give them the ability to not love him(i.e. sin). Since God is Love, he may not change love to make it possible without choice - or he would not be self consistent.
Further, and more controversial, if God desires a relationship with people, he must limit himself to facilitate a relationship. If he knows what you are going to say before you say it, that is not much of a conversation is it? Therefore an infinite being limits himself for love because that is what he is. Can God do anything? Yup. Will God do anything? No.
Again, I am not trying to convert anyone. You are free to disagree if you will. The fact that your view is logical does not imply all other views are illogical. We have an untestable(from either side), unprovable philosophical difference of opinions.