- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,605
- 52,510
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
If you don't know, it's okay to say so.
I've been known to say that from time to time.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you don't know, it's okay to say so.You could look into it if you actually were interested. Several links to pages and videos have been posted in recent threads on this topic.
If you don't know, it's okay to say so.
I've been known to say that from time to time.
So because some chemicals exists they must have randomly created life?
But of course we can't even do it now in a controlled environment.
You mean my "completely irrelevant belief" that evolution will wax stronger and stronger, culminating in a time where it will be explained so simply a child can understand it?
Can't help but think these ridiculously trivial, unthinking, junk posts of @AV1611VET's are just some kind of tactic to bury the useful ones(?) .. Or am I being too generous in even suggesting that(?)You could look into it if you actually were interested. Several links to pages and videos have been posted in recent threads on this topic.
10-4It is complicated and I don't have the facts fully integrated in a way that I can easily write out a coherent summary for a lay audience. That's why I suggest you go find a summary if you really care.
(Namely because you don't care and so you won't make the attempt ..)10-4
Couldn't have said that better, myself!
So, in those contexts, would it still be called 'life'?Triplet codons work well on Earth, but it’s not clear if that would be true elsewhere—life in the cosmos might differ significantly in its chemistry or in its coding. The genetic code is "presumably derivative and subservient to the biochemistry of peptides" that are required for life to work, said Drew Endy, an associate professor of bioengineering at Stanford University and president of the BioBricks Foundation, who was not involved in the study. In environments more complex than Earth, life might need to be encoded by quadruplet codons, but in much simpler settings, life might get by with mere doublet codons—that is, of course, if it uses codons at all.
Not everyone agrees that creating a full quad-coded life form will be simple. “I don’t think anything they show suggests that it’s going to be easy—but they do show it’s not impossible, and that’s interesting,” said Floyd Romesberg, a synthetic biologist who cofounded the biotech company Synthorx. Getting something that works poorly to work better is a “very, very different game” than trying to do the impossible.
Organic molecules are widely present in the dense interstellar medium, and many have been synthesized in the laboratory on Earth under the conditions typical for an interstellar environment. Until now, however, only relatively small molecules of biological interest have been demonstrated to form experimentally under typical space conditions. Here we prove experimentally that the condensation of carbon atoms on the surface of cold solid particles (cosmic dust) leads to the formation of isomeric polyglycine monomers (aminoketene molecules). Following encounters between aminoketene molecules, they polymerize to produce peptides of different lengths. The chemistry involves three of the most abundant species (CO, C and NH3) present in star-forming molecular clouds, and proceeds via a novel pathway that skips the stage of amino acid formation in protein synthesis. The process is efficient, even at low temperatures, without irradiation or the presence of water. The delivery of biopolymers formed by this chemistry to rocky planets in the habitable zone might be an important element in the origins of life.
The RNA world concept is one of the most fundamental pillars of the origin of life theory. It predicts that life evolved from increasingly complex self-replicating RNA molecules. The question of how this RNA world then advanced to the next stage, in which proteins became the catalysts of life and RNA reduced its function predominantly to information storage, is one of the most mysterious chicken-and-egg conundrums in evolution.
Here we show that non-canonical RNA bases, which are found today in transfer and ribosomal RNAs, and which are considered to be relics of the RNA world, are able to establish peptide synthesis directly on RNA.
The discovered chemistry creates complex peptide-decorated RNA chimeric molecules, which suggests the early existence of an RNA–peptide world from which ribosomal peptide synthesis may have emerged. The ability to grow peptides on RNA with the help of non-canonical vestige nucleosides offers the possibility of an early co-evolution of covalently connected RNAs and peptides, which then could have dissociated at a higher level of sophistication to create the dualistic nucleic acid–protein world that is the hallmark of all life on Earth.
May you missed the fact that in the 1960s experiments the forms of energy suggested to have initiated abiogenesis actually destroy the amino acids formed in the process.Peptides and nucleotides aren't just any old random chemicals.
On Earth, they are specifically, directly associated with biology.
No, we are asking you to believe that scientists are doing their best to form a coherent theory of abiognesis. You want to characterize abiogenesis as a miracle for some reason and it may be a miracle--as theists believe--but if it was you will still have to wait for the science to learn how it happened. What's the hurry? It all happened a long time ago and knowing the technical details is going to be intersting but it's not going to change our lives very much. Be patient. Or enter that field of research yourself.You are literally asking us to believe a miracle happened.
No, you don't get it. You believe it happened with no solid evidence that it's even possible. That's a miracle by definition.No, we are asking you to believe that scientists are doing their best to form a coherent theory of abiognesis. You want to characterize abiogenesis as a miracle for some reason and it may be a miracle--as theists believe--but if it was you will still have to wait for the science to learn how it happened. What's the hurry? It all happened a long time ago and knowing the technical details is going to be intersting but it's not going to change our lives very much. Be patient. Or enter that field of research yourself.
May you missed the fact that in the 1960s experiments the forms of energy suggested to have initiated abiogenesis actually destroy the amino acids formed in the process.
You've been given plenty of evidence that it is possible, but you don't want to accept it.No, you don't get it. You believe it happened with no solid evidence that it's even possible.
Incorrect. A miracle is a supposed event where the evidence says it is not possible. There's a difference between "we don't know if it's possible or not" and "it is not possible".That's a miracle by definition.
That's certainly an option, but it is not consistent with the evidence we have.It would actually be more consistent to claim that life always existed because all we can observe is life coming from other life.
It means what it said. You have given a reasonable summary of what is status of conjecture, with little evidence to support it. Not least if all these steps were likely there would be some evidence of intermediate parts of that process continuing so discoverable. But there is nothing in evidence except a highly developed minimum cell.Was this supposed to have some sort of meaning? It rambles and says nothing.
(And "Origin of Life" is the name used for the research in that field as used by the people who do it.)
Believe what happened? That life began at some point? Don't you?No, you don't get it. You believe it happened with no solid evidence that it's even possible. That's a miracle by definition.
It's even more fantastic to believe it happened without any guidance. It would actually be more consistent to claim that life always existed because all we can observe is life coming from other life.
Assuming there is a single point at which life can be said to have begun. In a continuum of development, assigning such a point is merely arbitrary and has no effect on the course of development itself.It means what it said. You have given a reasonable summary of what is status of conjecture, with little evidence to support it. Not least if all these steps were likely there would be some evidence of intermediate parts of that process continuing so discoverable. But there is nothing in evidence except a highly developed minimum cell.
There is still the philosophical problem that one step defines the change to the point at which the first cell could evolve, or the change from no life to life, but the problem is before that step there was no evolution so no change is possible. Yet that minimum cell is hideously complex.
So I remain fascinated but as yet far from convinced, and I await the first hypothesis for the critical step ( which is the abiogenesis step)
It means what it said. You have given a reasonable summary of what is status of conjecture, with little evidence to support it. Not least if all these steps were likely there would be some evidence of intermediate parts of that process continuing so discoverable. But there is nothing in evidence except a highly developed minimum cell.
Then you know life didn't begin on earth but always was. We only observe life from life which is consistent with what the Bible says about creation. Abiogenesis is a theory that life happens by accident. Christians don't believe that story.Believe what happened? That life began at some point? Don't you?
I don't know how it happened. I'll have to wait while scientists struggle with the question. But as a Christian I already know who brought it about and why, so I am content to wait for the how of it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?