http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479777,00.html
Yes this is Fox. But forget that fact for the moment and just concentrate on what the article is about.
As quoted from the article: "Now scientists have created something in the lab that is tantalizingly close to what might have happened."
Yes it's a maybe, might, could have been like this... etc. Ultimately I doubt we'll ever know "exactly" what happened to create life (as we know it) here on Earth.
But the possibility of what these guys have done... is very intriguing.
They created RNA. That's still nowhere near enough for a cell to be formed.
They created self-replicating RNA, which answers one of the big questions about the origin of life. It has been thought for a long time that RNA was the ancestor of DNA, but there was a problem with that hypothesis, in that it was believed that RNA could not replicate without the presence of DNA. This experiment has demonstrated that yes, it is entirely possible for RNA to replicate itself.
I would say it's neat that (yet another) major argument put forth by the fundies has been shown conclusively to be utterly wrong, but it really doesn't matter, as those freaks are so out of touch with reality that no amount of evidence or argument will ever be enough for them.
rock_nog wrote:I would say it's neat that (yet another) major argument put forth by the fundies has been shown conclusively to be utterly wrong, but it really doesn't matter, as those freaks are so out of touch with reality that no amount of evidence or argument will ever be enough for them.
Probably because logically it's pretty much impossible to disprove God, of course for some reason those science fundies who believe in logic so much seem to ignore it.
phattonez wrote:Probably because logically it's pretty much impossible to disprove God, of course for some reason those science fundies who believe in logic so much seem to ignore it.
Proving/disproving the existence of God has nothing to do with it. Me not being able to disprove the existence of God has absolutely nothing to do with idiots who dismiss scientific evidence simply because it goes against their superstitions.
phattonez wrote:Probably because logically it's pretty much impossible to disprove God, of course for some reason those science fundies who believe in logic so much seem to ignore it.
No, this is a good point. If I told Phattonez that I have a firebreathing unicorn that can time-travel, in my dorm room, he'd have to believe it because logically it's pretty much impossible to prove that firebreathing time-traveling unicorns can survive outside of their natural habitat, despite the evidence that they can easily live in a dorm room.
phattonez wrote:Probably because logically it's pretty much impossible to disprove God, of course for some reason those science fundies who believe in logic so much seem to ignore it.
Kinda like how you ignore every religion other than your own.
EDIT: What I'm saying is no religion is any more valid than another, so either you're asking scientist to assume that every religion is true; or only your religion because it's "more special". I'm sorry, but that reason isn't enough to convince anyone.
*ignoring the religious crap*
Well, cell-like shells form naturally in certain chemical soups, this has been known for a while. So, if this self-replicating RNA can be found to naturally evolve a "symbiosis" with these shells, you're almost there.
Awesome.
We are now a little bit closer to understanding the universe. I wonder how much further we can take this particular research...
phattonez wrote:Probably because logically it's pretty much impossible to disprove God, of course for some reason those science fundies who believe in logic so much seem to ignore it.
I'm guessing that you're trolling, because the alternative would be that you're the stupidest person I've ever talked to.
Wow, it's kind of ridiculous how seriously people take this. I never said that it has to be true, I only said that it can't be disproved. All of you know that it's true if you have any sense of logic. I can say that there's a ghost in my room. I probably don't, it sounds stupid, but you can't disprove it.
phattonez wrote:All of you know that it's true if you have any sense of logic.
You're saying that if I have any sense of logic, then I know that God exists? But, phattonez, I have a great propensity for logic, and yet I do not know that God exists.
Phattonez, you're the one who brought up God in the first place. I was simply pointing out that yet another argument that young-Earth Creationists often make has bitten the dust, and you turned this into a God debate. I'm fairly confident most of us (with the possible exception of Russ) can agree that even if God does exist, he didn't wave a magic wand and shout "Shazaam!" and instantly create the Earth and everything on it.
Ultimately, my point was that these Creationists are so blinded by faith that they will reject evidence that they can see with their own eyes to keep it, and you've gotta admit that when you start rejecting reality over faith, that's a dangerous path.
rock_nog wrote:I would say it's neat that (yet another) major argument put forth by the fundies has been shown conclusively to be utterly wrong, but it really doesn't matter, as those freaks are so out of touch with reality that no amount of evidence or argument will ever be enough for them.
rock_nog wrote:Phattonez, you're the one who brought up God in the first place. I was simply pointing out that yet another argument that young-Earth Creationists often make has bitten the dust, and you turned this into a God debate. I'm fairly confident most of us (with the possible exception of Russ) can agree that even if God does exist, he didn't wave a magic wand and shout "Shazaam!" and instantly create the Earth and everything on it.Ultimately, my point was that these Creationists are so blinded by faith that they will reject evidence that they can see with their own eyes to keep it, and you've gotta admit that when you start rejecting reality over faith, that's a dangerous path.
Because no matter what you discover, you cannot disprove that God created the Earth. I'm not saying that you have to believe it, in fact there are plenty of reasons not to, but it just can't be disproved. There are also plenty of reasons to believe it, but I'm sure you wouldn't go for any of them.
Modus Ponens wrote:You're saying that if I have any sense of logic, then I know that God exists? But, phattonez, I have a great propensity for logic, and yet I do not know that God exists.
No, read more carefully. If you have any sense of logic, then you would know that it is impossible to prove that God does not exist.
Have you noticed how immature we are? We can't even discuss RNA without bringing God and Evolution into it. 😊
Anyways, Phattonez does have a point. All he's saying is that you can disprove God (which is true), and you're acting like he's saying the world's flat.
I still don't understand what the existence of God has to do with this article. There is no rule stating that belief and God and the acceptance of the theory of evolution are somehow mutually exclusive. My comments had nothing to do with fundies and their belief in God. I was referring to their blind rejection of evolution.
And Russ, it's kind of hard not to bring evolution into this, being this whole thing is about evolution. Scientists have shown that RNA can self-replicate, which is a major step in working out the origins of life.
^^It's because you can't disprove what they believe. Even if you prove that chemical evolution could occur, it wouldn't disprove what they believe.
If they believe that chemical evolution can't occur, wouldn't that disprove what they believe? I mean, I don't have so much of a problem with beliefs regarding things that can't be tested, like heaven/hell or what have you, but I think it's different when you're talking about something that can easily be proven one way or the other. No amount of believing you can fly will change the fact that if you hurl yourself off a cliff, you're going to slam into the ground.
Sure, you have a point in that they likely won't change their beliefs regardless of evidence put forth - scientists could grow a life form from a primordial soup in a lab, and they would still claim that chemical evolution is impossible, but at that point, I would hope we, as a society, would have the intelligence to recognize that their beliefs are wrong.
It's not necessarily that they believe it can't occur, but more that they believe it didn't occur and that it doesn't explain our existence. Experiments like these won't really prove anything to them, it just proves that it could happen. And no amount of evidence will really ever disprove God, which is really what is most important to them.
Well, belief in God may be the most important thing to them, but my primary concern is the anti-science mentality that comes along with it. I mean, you've got nonsense like intelligent design being taught in schools, or people who refuse to get their children vaccinated because of unfounded fears of autism, or people like Sarah Palin openly mocking research on fruit flies that directly contributes to our understanding of various genetic diseases.
I'm not sure what could be done about it, but I'm concerned because I'm seeing very real consequences as a result of this way of thinking.
I'd rather have - and I'm sure you'd agree with me on this - students learning the process of science and that nothing is a hard fact. Everything is open to criticism and change. Science steadfastly holds onto nothing. It just goes with the evidence. Teach kids that and then teach them what science has discovered. Don't just teach everything as fact. In the 1800s, it was taught that protein had the genetic material. It would be a shame if we still held onto that notion.
Still doesn't justify the teaching of non-science in a science class.
now someone needs to come out with tubes of RNA and make it so people in public can make their own "species" to battle it out with other peoples and we watch it all under a microscope.
Its the new giga pet!
Rock_Nog wrote:or people who refuse to get their children vaccinated because of unfounded fears of autism
Sorry, but I can't let that one pass. My uncle spent his entire life in a bed, able to only barely move his eyes, because a shot he was given shortly after birth irreparably damaged his nervous system. It happens, man.
Yeah, one of the tenets of science that needs to be emphasized more is it's ever changing nature.
My apologies... Yes, there are very rarely reactions, but there's no scientific evidence that vaccines are causing an epidemic of autism. Autism rates have gone up, yes, but this is largely because the definition has expanded and people are getting diagnosed with autism who would not have received that diagnosis in prior years. Besides, it has been shown that not using the preservative thought to cause autism has no effect on autism rates.
EDIT: Also, I gotta admit, I want a test tube full of battle-RNA, too.
That's easy. Get sick, and sneeze into your test tube. 😃
Although I will admit, it would be awesome.
The_Amaster wrote:Yeah, one of the tenets of science that needs to be emphasized more is it's ever changing nature.
That's basically what I've been going for here. Everything you get taught in school about science is treated as uncontestable fact that will stand the test of time. No true scientist will admit that about anything. Classic physics is a great example of that. It was thought to explain everything until we got into the more atomic scale of things.
phattonez wrote:No true scientist will admit that about anything.
All true scientists admit this, and are even extremely proud of it.
I don't know what bullshit school you went to, but at my school we learned actual science.
Belderan, the only point Phattonez and I are making is that before Einstein, everyone knew that space and time were distinct. Before Newton, everyone knew that one force pulled things down, and another kept the heavenly bodies in orbit. Before Heisenberg, everyone knew that you could tell exactly where something was, and where it was going.
And yet no-one knows these things today.
Science alway changes.