Scientists Create Life - God Not Required
An elegant experiment has quashed a major objection to the theory that life on Earth originated with molecules of RNA.Now of course this doesn't necessarily mean this is exactly how it happened, but it does prove one thing; It proves that for a self replicating molecule - life - to form a magical man in the sky is not required. You just need the right chemicals, the right conditions and they can do it all by themselves.
John Sutherland and his colleagues from the University of Manchester, UK, created a ribonucleotide, a building block of RNA, from simple chemicals under conditions that might have existed on the early Earth.
The feat, never performed before, bolsters the 'RNA world' hypothesis, which suggests that life began when RNA, a polymer related to DNA that can duplicate itself and catalyse reactions, emerged from a prebiotic soup of chemicals.
"This is extremely strong evidence for the RNA world. We don't know if these chemical steps reflect what actually happened, but before this work there were large doubts that it could happen at all," says Donna Blackmond, a chemist at Imperial College London.
So i wonder what dark corner the peddlers of the god of the gaps fallacy will relegate their god to now?
[ SOURCE ]
Posts
6 comments:
I love the Rapture Ready take on this news:http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=93049
"Yeah, I dont buy this for a second. Couldnt they have just read Genesis? Saved a lot of time!! "
"Professing to be wise, they became fools"
"I think it takes more faith to believe in evolution. "
"I found how life began many years ago. All I had to do is pick up a Bible and read the first few chapters of Genesis and there it was in black and white."
etc etc
Where have scientists claimed they have created a living being, even a single cell of life?
I think Atheists are like a religious fanatics who rush to declare anything a miracle to support own views.
If scientists can create life, it will be all over the television. Not in some obscure journal that does not even make claims you are running to make on their behalf.
Wait..wait..
@Stallions:
First, yes, the title of the blog post is 'somewhat' misleading as the scientists didn't actually create life, they did, however create the "building blocks" of life. If you cannot fathom what this means than that is a flaw on your behalf, not the scientists.
Finally, do you realize that you just called 'Nature' "some obscure journal"? 'Nature' is the the most widely used journal for scientists. In other words, if a scientist can get something published in 'Nature' then you know they have done something mighty impressive.
Holy heck, talk about moronic statements!
P.S. re. "...Atheists (sic) are like a religious fanatics (sic) who rush to declare anything a miracle to support [their] own views": wow, way to make use of that brush you have there, sir. *sigh*
It's one thing to create "a ribonucleotide, a building block of RNA", it's another thing to prove that life can spontaneously emerge. This is only (1) a part of (2) RNA which is only (3) a part of a cell. (4) And life cannot exist by itself. It must exist within a community of life forms.
This experiment proves the one thing (1) and leaves all the others (2, 3 and 4).
So I do not see how this proves that abiogenesis can occur. It is only a ribonucleotide that has been made. A ribonucleotide does not make self sustaining life anymore than a part of a bolt makes a car.
In the hopes of a good discussion. Does anyone consider it possible that God worked at a slow pace? Meaning he didn't go poof and man was there, instead he let the world "evolve" at an extreamly slow slow rate, thus allowing for the "chemical stew" to happen but also being in control of it as well? Does this idea make sense or have merit with anyone?
Well, where did all the chemicals come from?
Post a Comment