A team of chemists working at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, at Cambridge in the UK believes they have solved the mystery of how it was possible for life to begin on Earth over four billion years ago. In their paper published in the journal Nature Chemistry, the team describes how they were able to map reactions that produced two and three-carbon sugars, amino acids, ribonucleotides and glycerol—the material necessary for metabolism and for creating the building blocks of proteins and ribonucleic acid molecules and also for allowing for the creation of lipids that form cell membranes.
Scientists have debated for years the various possibilities that could have led to life evolving on Earth, and the arguments have only grown more heated in recent years as many have suggested that it did not happen here it all, instead, it was brought to us from comets or some other celestial body. Most of the recent debate has found scientists in one of three chicken-or-the-egg first camps: RNA world advocates, metabolism-first supporters and those who believe that cell membranes must have developed first.
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-chemists-riddle-life-began-earth.html
[Abstract]: http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nchem.2202.html
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday March 20 2015, @07:21PM
Press releases like this annoy me. We've had some pretty good theories for the origin of life since Miller Urey.
And this model doesn't describe the transition from that amino acid rich environment to life anymore than Miller Urey described Methane+Ammonia becoming Life.
The process that happened is now clearer, but they didn't "solve" the "riddle". I mean, it's one less thing that idiot creationists can point to as being impossible to happen as a result of natural processes, but the broader scientific understanding isn't perfect yet.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Archon V2.0 on Friday March 20 2015, @08:25PM
> Press releases like this annoy me. We've had some pretty good theories for the origin of life since Miller Urey.
They annoy everyone, as they are the first step on a long road of failure. They even annoy people who do the research: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174 [phdcomics.com]
> I mean, it's one less thing that idiot creationists can point to as being impossible to happen as a result of natural processes,
You mean the same creationists that say evolution is impossible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? This won't change anything. Hell, God himself could appear and say he didn't create life and they'd argue with him.
(Score: 3, Funny) by ikanreed on Friday March 20 2015, @08:33PM
I admit it. Ascribing reality to hypothetical creationist arguments is pretty dumb.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 20 2015, @08:33PM
Besides, every gap you fill makes two more (albeit smaller) gaps on either side.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 20 2015, @08:55PM
gap! Gap! GAP!!!!
gapgapgapgapgap!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jdccdevel on Friday March 20 2015, @11:12PM
I guess I've been lucky enough to never have had to have a real, serious argument with a creationist.
That said, maybe that's because my comeback argument has always been something like...
Creationists are arguing against a God that could:
1) Create the entire universe, in a state of essentially completely random chaos at The Beginning.
2) Create a set of rules to govern the way things interact in that universe.
3) Set the whole works in motion (i.e. Create Time)
4) Sit back and do NOTHING for the next FEW BILLION YEARS, secure in the knowledge that given the initial state of the universe would eventually give rise to humans, and allow us to have this argument.
To me, that has always seemed more impressive for an omnipotent being than creationist arguments, which essentially boils down to "God created the universe 6000 years ago, and made up all this fake back-story just to mess with us."
Note, the awesome thing about this argument is that it's science-compatible, and it turns the Creationist argument back on itself... If they continue to argue their position, they're arguing for a "Less Powerful" God than my argument posits.
You don't even need to believe in a Omnipotent being, or assert the existence of one, you just need to argue that that's what the creationist is arguing against.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by anubi on Friday March 20 2015, @11:36PM
The part the Creationists lose me is exactly what you said... the 6,000 year thing.
When anyone asserts their belief as fact, in the face of observable, repeatable phenomena, unfortunately, he registers as an ignorant crackpot. Ignorant because of a demonstrated lack of observation, and crackpot because he is trying to sell this unfounded idea on others.
While I do believe in a Creator, I find his fan club does more to discredit his work by playing scripture lawyer.
Science has been my biggest factor in forging my belief this reality is a creation of something far more than I, however religions have been my biggest factor in making me think that all this "faith" stuff is just another "leadership skill" to subordinate people. Tune in to darned near any TV preacher and all he seems to bark about is money. Disgusting. It is so obvious where his faith is, and God seems to have nothing to do with it.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Leebert on Saturday March 21 2015, @12:16AM
I am a creationist. I am not a young-earth creationist. You'd be surprised at how many of us there are. It's just that the young-earth types tend to be the loud ones.
I agree with your assessment of "disgusting". That said, this is a bit of selection bias. If you're a "preacher" trying to bilk people out of money, you're going to have the most success if you're on TV.
I like referring people back to Matthew 7:15-23, where Jesus talks about false prophets and the people who will do evil things in his name. Even to the point of fooling themselves that they have somehow done something great in the name of Jesus.
As to faith, and the answers that you seek, I'll simply point you to Hebrews 11:6, which has a promise in it: "he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Also reference Matthew 7:7, with a similar promise.) Spend some time seeking God, earnestly and diligently. If the Bible is true, this is a promise that will be fulfilled. If you don't find that faith, well... the fact that you are not rewarded with that faith means that it was an untrue promise, and thus invalidates the scripture altogether.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 21 2015, @01:43AM
How is goddidit working out for you? One thing I don't get is why people have so much difficulty just admitting that they don't know the answer to something. "I don't know." is a lot simpler and more honest than "A god must have done it, even though I have no evidence of that."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Leebert on Saturday March 21 2015, @02:09AM
Quite well, thank you.
I don't know. I *believe* it. That's what faith is about. If I *knew*, it wouldn't really be faith. That's that whole Hebrews 11:6 thing again: "he that cometh to God must believe that he is".
Believe [reference.com]: "to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so"
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 21 2015, @02:30AM
it's funny when atheists try to justify their own faith in unproven psuedo-scientific theories (like in TFA) and then deny their own beliefs as being religious
i'm not religious or atheist... i'm "open-minded"
(Score: 1) by Steve Hamlin on Saturday March 21 2015, @02:44AM
"then deny their own beliefs as being religious"
You can have a proof-less belief in something (under the definition Leebert posted), and yet that belief does not have to be religious, or even supernatural at all.
Religion: "the belief in a god or in a group of gods; an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 21 2015, @02:52AM
You have a pretty odd definition of "faith" and "religious". The scientific method has shown to be the most reliable way of arriving at the truth, even if it is not perfect. That is not "faith", and it has nothing to do with religion.
i'm not religious or atheist... i'm "open-minded"
Are you open minded about the tooth fairy, and flying spaghetti monster, Santa Claus, and any number of other things someone could dream up?
I'm an agnostic atheist. That is, I don't claim that god doesn't exist. But there is no evidence that such a thing exists, so I lack a belief in it. If someone could present compelling evidence, then that would give people an actual reason to believe. In that way, I too am "open-minded."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 21 2015, @02:54AM
In other words, you have an irrational belief in a magical sky daddy for no reason. Thank you for making that clear. No need to quote your fairy tale book, though.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Saturday March 21 2015, @03:11AM
No, that's not true. But based on your condescending wording, I don't get the sense that you really want to understand anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 21 2015, @03:38AM
I am condescending because you admitted that you have nothing but faith. You didn't present any evidence; you just mentioned more nonsense about faith. If you believe in the existence of a god without evidence (and there is no good evidence, and ignorance doesn't count as evidence), then you are irrational.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Saturday March 21 2015, @07:30AM
I cite the "watchmaker's analogy" as evidence. Its all the evidence I have. I am aware of the complexity of everything around me and am at a complete loss of words to explain it.
Occam's razor steps in... you find a watch... there was most likely a watchmaker somewhere who made it. It didn't get there by itself.
And that's about all I know. The rest is conjecture, and I openly admit it as such.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 21 2015, @08:49AM
That is not evidence. That is just saying, "I don't know how this could have happened without a god, so it was god." In other words, an argument from ignorance. God of the gaps is still very popular.
We know watches are created because we create them all the time and we have evidence that it happens. No such evidence exists for god. And I think that Occam's razor wouldn't support an omnipotent being far more complex than anything we can possibly imagine.
(Score: 1) by EventH0rizon on Saturday March 21 2015, @01:34PM
A creationist, OK.
No doubt you're aware that Jesus believed that the end of time was at hand, really at hand. And not in some misty-eyed metaphysical sense, but really about to happen. In places like Matthew 16:28, it's clear that he believed that some of those around him would still be alive when it happened.
“There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Care to tell us your take on this?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Leebert on Saturday March 21 2015, @02:26PM
Sure, I'd be happy to.
Verse 27 starts the thought that is continued in verse 28: For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels...
It's helpful to keep in mind that Christians, in general, believe that Jesus was simultaneously God and man (John 1:1, 1:14; 9:35-38). It's my interpretation that, when Jesus refers to himself as the "Son of man", he is referring to his human incarnation - Jesus of Nazareth. A clear instance of this is in Matthew 8:20 where he refers to himself in that way when pointing out that he has no home.
With that in mind, my interpretation of the verse you quoted is that Jesus is referring to his "ascension", 40 days after the resurrection (Mark 16:19). It most certainly happened during the lifespan of most of the people who were witness to that statement, including the 11 remaining apostles (explicitly mentioned in Mark 16:14).
The standard disclaimer of human interpretations being just as fallible as humans applies, and I am most definitely human.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 21 2015, @03:53PM
John the Beloved was given the gift of immortality.
John 21:21-23
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 21 2015, @01:14AM
When anyone asserts their belief as fact, in the face of observable, repeatable phenomena, unfortunately, he registers as an ignorant crackpot.
when you have observed how life began on earth and repeated the process in a laboratory, be sure to let us know
otherwise, anyone that thinks they know how life began on earth is an ignorant crackpot
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 21 2015, @01:48AM
otherwise, anyone that thinks they know how life began on earth is an ignorant crackpot
Who says they know? There are plausible theories, but that isn't the same as knowing.
And many fools reject the theory of evolution, despite the overwhelming evidence in its favor. These people do not care about evidence. Their ignorance is, to them, just more evidence that a magical sky daddy exists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 21 2015, @02:24AM
theory of evolution, despite the overwhelming evidence in its favor
ignorant crackpot!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mendax on Saturday March 21 2015, @02:01AM
I've had arguments with creationists before. I'm right and they're wrong... at least when it comes to the Genesis thing. I may not be a good Catholic (perhaps because I'm Catholic by choice, not birth) when I say this but the idea that God created the Universe is not a problem for me. The the elegance of the laws of physics, the elegance of the DNA/RNA approach to the chemical mechanics of life, and mathematics convinced me long ago that the Universe was created by some Intelligence who is a poet at heart.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 1) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday March 21 2015, @07:03AM
A poet? Really? You haven't looked very closely at nature...if that's a poet he's a Vogon. Krishna above, but you stupid privileged bliss-ninnies piss me off. Go out and get ebola or AIDS and see what you think of that fuckin' poetry.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mendax on Saturday March 21 2015, @08:38AM
I have looked at nature closely and the poetry is marvelous. The AIDS virus, for example, kills people and that is unfortunate, but it is an amazing result of the process of evolution. Just because people die does not necessarily mean that something is bad. The things in nature that kill are indeed intellectually fascinating. Keep in mind that death is just another part of life.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday March 20 2015, @11:44PM
They annoy everyone, as they are the first step on a long road of failure.
If the were the first step, that might be true.
But as the GP points out they are just the latest rehash of theories posited and tested decades ago.
Slightly different processes, perhaps, but no more convincing than any of the other prior theories.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 20 2015, @08:52PM
Where's that study about how there are too many studies?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 21 2015, @01:11AM
the 'scientists' involved should write a book about their theory and call it 'Genesis'
(Score: 2) by anubi on Saturday March 21 2015, @07:54AM
I was just a kid when that Miller-Urey experiment you recalled made the news.
It was everywhere. Seemed like we were just around the corner from making life, or at least, that seemed what the tabloids of the day were saying.
And the preachers were predicting doom from the pulpit. I guess they have been doing it for about 2,000 years now. God will destroy man before he lets man create life.
Thanks for bringing that little gem up.
That experiment went a long way with me with showing I was made from the same things the Earth is made of. But made me realize even more how I am an assembled pile of these building blocks. There appears to be nothing in me of any particular value... actually I am probably of negative value, as I will pay for someone to cart me off and do what has to be done to spent bodies.
For these chemicals to become me in and of themselves seems tantamount to parts in a junkyard self-assembling into an operable car.
As for what God wants... well he sure got mad at several people in the Scriptures for not honoring their birthright... would I be pissed if I designed a cat with claws - and he wouldn't go catch a mouse? If I am created with the ability to think and I do not pursue, aren't I wasting a resource given me?
I read many times in the Scriptures that we are referred to as the temples of God. We may find ourselves to be the very vessel God lives in - and we've known God all along and failed to recognize Him...
I am getting a strong idea God lives in US. Maybe another word for God is Compassion. ( This is pure conjecture ). There is so much I am ignorant of that I am hesitant to even discuss it, but hopefully others of like mind share their conjectures as well and some signal may emerge from all this ignorance. No one needs to refer to me as an ignoramus because I have already claimed that. I'll lay my cards on the table for what they are worth.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]