Abiogenesis - a query to all.

ok.

i've done this before.

You need first year undergraduate organic chemistry and biochemistry/ cellular biology as a minimum to properly understand this. Otherwise, as i said, it's like arguing about the minutiae of french poetry when you don't even speak french.

Sorry that's just how it is.

Some corrections:

The goal is to get to a protocell not an amoeba which is infinitely more complex.

You need a simple barrier/membrane and some form of polymeric replicating molecule inside it. All it needs to "feed" are the monomers for replicating molecule and the monomers of the cell membrane.

Again there are all sorts of fascinating mechanisms for how these monomers may have come about from inorganic materials, - Sutherland's group is where it's at: https://www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/group-leaders/n-to-s/john-sutherland/ - not the old 1950s Miller-Urey experiment.

Then there's interest in clay-based catalysis for polymerisation of both the vesicles and polynucleotides for protocell formation, and simple ribozyme activity catalyzing replication inside the protocell. Mechanisms for protocell division include simple osmotic pressure driving the activity as well as temperature and pH gradients which might be found at hydrothermal vents.

the odds of a cell forming spontaneously that you quote are inappropriate and entirely irrelevant. And indeed the whole purpose of abiogenesis research is to a find a probabilistically plausible mechanism, rather than the ridiculous notion of complete spontaneous assembly.

What he said ^

You need first year undergraduate organic chemistry and biochemistry/ cellular biology as a minimum to properly understand this.

Life/DNA probably developed by stages....we just have no record of it.

At the moment we believe water is necessary for life

abiogenesis

the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.

I suspect we may find that we have to approach this from two sides.
To look at the most complex non living compounds and the most primitive living cell we can find.

See if we can see the tipping point when inorganic life could be considered organic.

Water was brought to earth, mostly by comets. Perhaps they also brought life???????????????????????????????????????

We are still in the dark tbh

you should email Jack Szostak with your ideas ebul.

Without fully understand it, I suspect DStyle was giving us the minimum requirements for something to be considered life.

I shall read his theories DStyle...I doubt my brain or knowledge matches his.

so the food was Clay?

Food is energy for the mechanisms. were are theses simple cells getting their energy from? The ribozymes move to assemble the DNA - all moving life needs energy. Movement requires energy.

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry for 2015 was given jointly to three scientists who discovered repair mechanisms in our DNA.

“The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2015 is awarded to Tomas Lindahl, Paul Modrich and Aziz Sancar for having mapped, at a molecular level, how cells repair damaged DNA and safeguard the genetic information. Their work has provided fundamental knowledge of how a living cell functions and is, for instance, used for the development of new cancer
treatments.”

“Damages occur to your DNA every day.” Sara Snogerup Linse is the chair of the Nobel Committee for chemistry.
‘In fact, right here, right now, if all those errors were left uncorrected, your genetic material would have very little resemblance to the original chromosomes in your very first cell. Life as we know it today is totally dependent on
DNA repair mechanisms, as have been revealed in molecular detail by this year’s chemistry laureates.’”

Think about what Nobel Prize Chemists are actually saying. This is totally anti-evolution. Our DNA repairs itself. Maybe that seems like it is not important, or perfectly natural, unless you think about it for a few minutes. What is DNA repairing itself from? Why mutations of course. DNA does not like mutations and actually has at least three different ways of fighting against mutation, and trying to stop mutation, and repairing against it when it does happens (which is often).

Now evolutionists will have an even more difficult time explaining that their mechanism for developing new species is even remotely possible. Scientists have shown that mutation cannot really be the process for change.

Here is what the Nobel Academy said about Dr. Paul Modrich’s discovery of the “mismatch repair mechanism”.

"This mechanism, mismatch repair, reduces the error frequency during DNA replication by about a thousand fold,"
the academy said.

The Nobel Prize was given to a man who made evolution about a thousand times more difficult. Imagine what science will finally discover in the future if they keep going.

Wiki quote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQVm8RokoBA

0:00
my name is Gerald shoulder I have I have a got a strong science background from
0:05
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology bachelors masters PhD seven
0:10
years in physics staff see a whole range of atomic bombs detonated move to Israel
0:15
but my wife Barbara so for a great writer and then teach Torah and science
0:21
or luckily and I'm lucky that I have the two that come together and one of the
0:25
questions is a sign that I masters a scientist is how can a scientist you
0:29
really believe that there's something we refer to you as God knows this
0:34
metaphysical whatever acting in the world or producing the world the irony
0:38
is the question is will you done started
0:41
science has in fact discovered God and you can talk to the hardline atheists
0:45
and they will say it looks like science has indeed discovered God and how would
0:51
that be
0:52
well if you take the trouble of going to the weapon and they're typing WMAP the
0:56
initials for it for a satellite
0:57
it's a diagram that shows the development of the universe from the
1:02
creation over time it's a timeline
1:05
every word on that diagram comes from the NASA site
1:08
it is the condensed knowledge of the scientific community of how the universe
1:12
created and how it got to where we are today
1:15
each of the lines the vertical lines is another billion years
1:19
okay you start with a burst of energy the extreme left side of the diagram and
1:23
you end up at the far end with the over the over she is to indicate expansion or
1:27
directions of course because it's a timeline we can show that on a single
1:32
piece of paper we see here
1:34
most amazingly that on the extreme left age
1:38
it shows the beginning to the universe now go back to less than 50 years
1:41
if I were teaching that attack a matter of each in person whose tenure same as
1:45
the creation of the universe it sounds like it's Bible because less than 50
1:49
years ago the overwhelming scientific opinion was the universe is eternal
1:54
there was never a beginning the Bible is wrong from the very first sentence and
1:58
then we discovered suddenly arno penzias and robert wilson the bell labs in New
2:03
Jersey the northeast of us discover the echo of the Big Bang the energy left
2:08
over which George gamo 60 years ago predicted that if they had been
2:13
universe created hot and smaller would have exploded and the energy we get more
2:17
and more dilute and you need and Penzias and Wilson
2:20
these are no fences robert wilson discover this energy that had been
2:24
predicted
2:25
overnight the Bible got it right there is a beginning to the universe
2:30
now the black in the diagram is nothing
2:33
it's not a vacuum vacuums are within that diagram with in that cone of
2:37
expansion back vacuums are empty space and space is something the black of the
2:44
paper around the diagram is nothing it doesn't fit in our human brain because
2:48
humans think in a box a box made of time space and matter / energy
2:55
no human as clever as they might be as expensive as they might be things out of
3:01
that box so we say outside that diagram is nothing that use the words but we
3:05
can't conceive of nothing
3:06
doesn't fit in the human brain
3:09
how we can have this idea is there a god or not notice that the creation force
3:15
isn't the three letter word g OD if you look at the words carefully see quantum
3:19
fluctuations that understanding was first brought down by and try and bring
3:24
human being in the journal Nature almost 40 50 years 40 years ago the universe
3:29
allows creation of something from nothing
3:33
provided you have the laws of nature their quantum fluctuation drive and
3:38
realize any published in the journal Nature one of the two leading . your new
3:41
journals in the world that you can create something from absolute nothing
3:45
provided you got the laws of nature quantum physics and the laws of
3:49
relativity and others make the laws of nature
3:51
so look what science has discovered we can create the universe from absolute
3:55
nothing provide we have the the forces of nature
3:59
now the laws of nature the forces of nature and physical they act on the
4:03
physical
4:04
so if they create the universe that means they predate the universe
4:08
so now we have a set of forces we called the laws of nature that are not physical
4:14
that are able to act on the physical they create the physical from absolute
4:18
nothing and they predate the universe which means they predate our
4:22
understanding of time
4:24
put that together it sounds very familiar if you haven't noticed it
4:28
that's the biblical definition of God
4:36
there's only one knew what sets list left left left hanging we can talk about
4:39
it another time perhaps
4:41
is that which created the universe those forces active in the years but up to
4:45
that point
4:46
science says we brought you are correct that the definition of the biblical God
4:50
is predates time outside of time
4:53
God is not a physical being is is a force and it creates the universe
4:58
you'll notice that the opening chapter of Genesis the only name for God is ever
5:01
came
5:02
God as manifest in the universe science has indeed discovered the biblical God
5:08
well we just need one part left crucial that was created the universe is also
5:13
active in the universe itself
5:15
they are affected you're watching this now pretty much established at that
5:18
point

Interesting Zorro

You say the DNA repair mechanism makes evolution a thousand times more difficult.

But that does not necessarily mean they repair all mutation?

You see all the variety of life comes these mutations, without it life would only exist in one form.


Darwin's proof of evolution were the Finches he found in the Galapagos islands.

Finches on different islands had different beaks, depending on what they were feeding on.

But at one point they were all the same Finch.

Oct 19, 2016 -- 12:46PM, ribotman wrote:

What he said ^

We discuss the possibility of lifeless matter somehow gaining life but the explanations get more and more desperate. We're still at the stage of not having a clue how matter itself originated. (Matter being whatever you wish to define it.)

Micro evolution, differences in a single species is a given. is not the same as macro evolution. Evolution is only problematic as a whole system.
Chemistry and physics and the other sciences don't stick to a dogma from 1859.

mixing one valid observation ADAPTION, everything adapts to it's surroundings. Put a flower near the window and it'll gravitate to the sun. put a dog on the ice and its coat will grow longer. In the sun and it will shorten.

Animals appearing in the fossil record by magic and viable animals vanishing isn't explained by evolution.

the trouble with evolution is it's a philosophy, not a science. a dog will never be anything but a dog. it may be thumbsized or as tall as a house.
you cannot cross breed it with canary.

Micro evolution (adaption) is not transmutation.
this idea of MANIMAL is ridiculous.

Demain, dès l’aube
Demain, dès l’aube, à l’heure où blanchit
la campagne,Je partirai. Vois-tu, je sais
que tu m’attends.J’irai par la forêt, j’irai
par la montagne.Je ne puis demeurer loin
de toi plus longtemps.
Je marcherai les yeux fixés sur mes pensées,

i do wonder why Victor Hugo felt the need to add tall temporary staff to his toy

do you understand yet zorro?

Love your gentle humour DStyle but as with your first post on this thread, I fear you may be, in a figurative sense, (If I may quote the Bible) casting pearls before swine.

DStyle can be very punny at temps.

Allegorical too.

I see many examples of abiogenesis in my sports betting

A look at the form of some dogs and horses, one would swear they have died

But they come springing back to life when least expected4


Evolution makes no attempt to say how life started, it is a set rules that apply when it has.

Also if life was created, it was not created all at the same time was it Zorro? as radiocarbon dating testifies

So how does a new species come into existence, out of thin air?

you may be right.

but i find it a shame that zorro reads so much, yet chooses to read such rubbish.

To spend so much time convincing yourself of something you already think you know by reading such nonsense seems a shame.

This is a lovely video from Richard Feynman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

Everyone should watch it. In it, he beautifully explains why simple questions cannot always be answered simply, and that sometimes the answer is difficult to understand, sometimes immediately inaccesible, and that to truly reach the answer might require further study.

(i still have no idea about Maxwell's equations, but it is something I hope to eventually understand)

It would seem from his posts that zorro has had little in the way of formal science education leaving him unprepared to discriminate science from manipulative pseudoscience.
If he had a scientific education he would know that there was no free oxygen in Earth's atmosphere prior to the advent of life. That the oxygen we breathe is a by-product of photosynthesis.
If he had a scientific education he would know that amoebae were not the first life forms and only evolved after life had existed for a billion years.
If he had any scientific education he would know that the evolution of sexual reproduction took around another billion years.
If he knew any of this he wouldn't post such rubbish.

he learns about natural science the same way a north korean school child learns about american history.

Messenger RNA comes out of the cell's nucleus.Then ribosomes read the RNA, receive instructions(information) to make amino acids and build proteins.

ink and paper make a book. The information comes from somewhere else.

the body is a bag of chemicals, how do chemicals think?

information and thinking is not the result of chemical interactions.

The first step in evolution was the development of simple self-copying molecules consisting of carbon dioxide, water and other inorganic compounds.  No one has proven that a simple self-copying molecule can self-generate a compound such as DNA.  Nor has anyone been able to create one in a laboratory or even on paper.  The hypothetical weak “primeval soup” was not like soups experienced by humans but was highly diluted, likely close to pure water.

a just so story - by Kipling.

'a' goes over to 'b' passes information over, 'b' goes and builds proteins.

this is happening in all your cells.

why ? and how? how does it find those instructions. going thru empty space till it meets with RNA - does ribosomes have senses? why should it bother to build anything?

it's remarkable that your responses always ends with well he's a dumb FK. what do you expect. He's obviously got retarded educational standards.
There are 3000 listed professors of biochemistry and other related fields published online. The head of the human genome project was a christian.

you are protecting your world view of materialism. Nothing from the 1859 theory has ever fallen away scientifically because you are married to 'the selfish gene' philosophy of i'm all that is... i'm god. Every other aspect of science and theory undergoes revision. You are all stuck in 1859.

if evolution was true. Your opinions of other people and their intelligence would be moot. as you are all base animals. Animal intelligence is not valued. they are meat, or passive objects of affection.

the only certain barrier to the truth, is the presumption that you already have it. (quote).

i didn't question your intelligence or say that you've got retarded educational standards. I just said you're looking in the wrong place for answers to questions you've already decided you know the answer to.

The hypocrisy of your final quote is staggering.

The only information you seek is that which confirms what you already want to believe. You have a shaky to non-existent knowledge and understanding of the concepts you try and use to refute the scientific status quo. Again, this is not because of your intelligence, it because you choose to acquire information from places which deliberately promote misunderstanding.

You are presenting knotted string, claiming it's impossible to unpick, asking people to unpick it, which they do, but you pay no attention to how it is unpicked, and when they have done so, you just provide another piece of knotted string. This can go on forever.

You should learn to unpick the string yourself.

You cannot learn to unpick complex notes before you learn the basics. You need to start at the beginning.

I and Foinavon have suggested that you should try and learn the basics, and learn from a neutral and respected source rather than learning nothing from the flawed, empty and fallacious rubbish available on creationist websites and videos. The north korean analogy was entirely appropriate - with the tragic exception that North Korean students of american history only have access to biased and distorted misinformation.

The MIT Open Courseware might be helpful.

7-01sc-fundamentals-of-biology might be an appropriate course to start with.

"Play the man, not the ball."

lol.

i've been playing the ball for months. but we're clearly playing completely different games. this is my point.

do you want me to explain that in his 2015 nobel chemistry post, he shows that he's completely confused meiosis and mitosis (my guess is he doesn't know what the difference is without having to google it). that low rate mutations in single celled organisms which reproduced through mitotic cell division are enough to see drug resistance evolve in bacteria in our lifetime. that i'd offer a dollar to a dime that it will soon be discovered that DNA/RNA fidelity and/or some DNA repair mechanisms in prokaryotic cells are downregulated/inhibited under stress.

what's the f*cking point? he'll not acknowledge what i've posted because he doesn't understand it. all he'll do is go and find another load of creationist horseshit he doesn't understand and c&p on here.

so yeah, until we both play the same game, i'll stop playing the ball, and tell the man the rules of the game he's trying to play instead.

Nobody knows how life started, that does not mean we throw away all our knowledge, and go back to believing Genesis.

The Human Species has done well in understanding the nature of our World, and we have benefitted from it, life is more comfortable know

than it used to be.

Go back just 200 years, see how people lived, you would be amazed at the difference.

know = now, and not just our World the whole Universe.

That is not easy considering we are one planet stuck in the western spiral arm of one galaxy.

We benefit by the cleverest of our species, not all of us, it is our communication and the fact we record it

is our secret. The Human Knowledge Base is our triumph.

Why should an animal spend all his days learning and training in a subject like physics when Darwinism tells us life is just about surviving and passing our genes onto the next generation?
All that knowledge takes a lifetime of struggle to attain and most of it becomes redundant over time. It would be revealed without that certain individual because truth becomes revealed over time. The light bulb would be invented without Swann or Edison, Maxim or Davey. The inventor's names would change and it might be five years later.
So why does an animal fill his mind with esoteric arguments, when it’s just about survival of his genes. Why seek out truths. Why care if a fictional character on the tv gets to where he is going. Why sacrifice money (food) for a dvd box set of the Sopranos. Why spend money on pigments to scrape across a piece of taut cloth. Spend millions on museums. Collect thousands of songs that reach out to the SOUL. Soul MUSIC.

Why feed the soul - when it doesn't exist mortal man.

NATURE MAGAZINE
http://www.nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478

the universe was thought to be eternal - the steady state model. This stood to the sixties. Until they embraced the Big Bang theory from the Belgian priest(Georges LeMaitre's 1927 theory)
The bible said God CREATED the universe. So for hundreds of years Science was wrong and the bible was right.

Eden was located in Africa, it gives the location in the bible. between four rivers, named.
Nature magazine (peer reviewed Nature magazine) article above tells us Adam and Eve the names they give for the two ancestors we are all related to were closer than thought previously.

How long before the bible is right again? I'll find another priest to correct you all.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

a very good and accessible article.

Maths

maths states that anything more that 10 to the power of 50, is considered to be a mathematical impossibility within the universe that has 10^85 atoms. within the universe.

So Francis Crick says a simple amino acid forming is 10^260, 20 different amino acids needed to form a basic cell. After forming 2 amino acids? are those two going to be viable as the other 18 needed come into existence or will they degrade in the time needed. Are they going to hang around? Considering Entropy and environmental chemistry which tends to degrade organic matter. Leave a tomato on the shelf for a week and you have a nice bit of sludge to eat. with mold growth.

So one amino acid is 10^260 + the second 10^260 + the third 10^260 - can you see that it's now ridiculous.

maths proves that abiogenesis is freakin impossible.

maths - we use it everyday - in turning on the pc. to the car, to count your shopping bill.
it's a legitimate branch of science with provability built in.
Darwinism - i don't think we use it in everyday life... it's more of a scientific philosophy. It's an explanation which is a just so story. with no proofs. just observations? eye witness testimonies.

I think you have posted this before. Bullsh1t baffles brains? Keep posting until everyone else gives up?

Glycine has been detected in interstellar dust in our galaxy, 10^26 chance?
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/aug/11/amino-acid-detected-in-space

The tomato in your analogy is decomposed by other living organisms, your analogy with a pre-life earth doesn't hold up.
Evolution is not a philosophy, it is scientific fact.

ribotman 19 Oct 16 11:46 Joined: 21 May 06

What he said ^

Zorro is determined to believe in the Creationism Theory, come what may, nothing will shift him.


The bible said God CREATED the universe. So for hundreds of years Science was wrong and the bible was right.

Not really Zorro, the bible was never right. It is just there was no conflicting theory so people believed it.

Science advances slowly, it relies on people with exceptional intelligence who only uncover

the picture a bit at a time. It works because we enjoy the fruits of it.

We have not discovered how life started yet.


Current evolution theory may not be the final answer. I find it more believable than Genesis myself, based on evidence to date.

Do you believe in geology and the age of the Earth Zorro. How do you explain ancient fossils?


You have the right to believe what you want Zorro,

what this is back?

' Zorro is determined to believe in the Creationism Theory, come what may, nothing will shift him. ' - yep my soul is safe. it's been banked.

you do know the bible was right - god stretched out the universe.... the big bang theory, expansion of the universe. In the beginning.... let there be light?

where as the prevailing scientific opinion up to the sixties was the steady state model. Replaced by the 1927 theory of Georges Lemaitre(FKIN belgian Priest) when they needed something to fit the facts. Einstein was livid as he loved the steady state model.

where as the prevailing scientific opinion up to the sixties was the steady state model. Replaced by the 1927 theory of Georges Lemaitre(FKIN belgian Priest) when they needed something to fit the facts. Einstein was livid as he loved the steady state model.

Well this is as it should be Zorro...everything must fit the facts..that is the rule of science proof.
But it takes time to establish the facts, technology has to move forward, also scientists sweat blood working out their theories,
it is not easy.

When it comes to fitting the facts, I think Genesis, is in a very weak position

Still do not let me weaken your faith, I would not do that, but I also argue for science.

If you believe God created us all, you must see he also created our brain, I think we are meant to use it,

be a waste otherwise. Do you want to live the animals?

to live like animals

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/426078/update-black-holes-safety-and-the-lhc-upgrade/

There’s little confidence to be gained from safety assessments that have been carried out in the past.. Back in the late 90s, a reader’s letter in Scientific American raised the question of whether the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) then being built at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, could produce black holes that might destroy the planet.
As a result, Brookhaven’s director commissioned a report from four physicists on the safety of the machine. This report concluded that the probability of catastrophe was 2 x 10^-4, describing this as “a comfortable margin of error”. Another report by a group of CERN physicists came to the “”extremely conservative conclusion [that] it is safe to run RHIC for 500 million years.”
These papers were widely used at the time to provide reassurance to the public and yet both later turned out to contain serious errors. The “comfortable margin of error” is actually a 1 in 5000 chance–not one that most people would consider comfortable. When this was pointed out, the team revised its figures by adding another zero onto the number making it a 1 in 50,000 chance, adding that “we do not attempt to decide what is an acceptable upper limit on [the probability of a disaster].”

So if we round that up to 1 in 100,000 making it 10^5….
So scientists are willing to accept the formation odds of one protein at 10^260 (Francis Crick’s own odds, Atheist) yet dismiss odds of 10^5 as ridiculous and would never happen?

Anyone connect the dots there?

ebulGery
When it comes to fitting the facts, I think Genesis, is in a very weak position
http://www.nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478?WT.mc_id=FBK_NatureNews

Genesis puts Eden in Ethiopia - Genesis 2:10–14 lists four rivers in association with the garden of Eden: Pishon, Gihon, the Tigris, and the Euphrates. It also refers to the land of Cush - translated/interpreted as Ethiopia.

science says Man came out of Africa ? bing bongo another Fkin coincidence.
Where's Ethiopia ?

your kung fu is weak Ed.

Where are the Tigris and the Euphrates? They are in Iraq not Ethiopia but don't let facts get in the way of a good read about talking serpents and original sin. Enjoy!

Not to worry, just google some more creationist websites, they will have already made up some convoluted theory to "explain" it.

FOINAVON are you being deliberately obtuse.

THEN. rivers change their paths.
some rivers go thru many countries like the amazon.
6000 years ago the lands were more plush.
TOPOGRAPHY has changed. The nile has changed course since the time of the pharaohs.

Experts have looked at it - complain to them.


Genesis 2:9-14

Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon (flow); it flows around the whole land of Havilah (land of sand) , where there is gold.
The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is Gihon(break forth); it flows around the whole land of Cush. The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

EXPERTS SAY it was ethiopia? Gihon(nreak forth) surrounded ethiopia.

BUT eden was the source of the waters?
It flowed out to form four rivers - so what fed these four rivers 6000 years ago.

So if we round that up to 1 in 100,000 making it 10^5….
So scientists are willing to accept the formation odds of one protein at 10^260 (Francis Crick’s own odds, Atheist) yet dismiss odds of 10^5 as ridiculous and would never happen?

Anyone connect the dots there?

Then it probably never that way. You find one problem with evolution and write the whole theory off.

But if we look at Genesis, there is more than problem there. You think life has only existed for 6000 years

The first life arose on Earth 3.8 billion years ago

a slight difference in timescale Zorro

never happened that way

I do not think God and Science have to be mutually exclusive.

There are lots of scientists who have, and still believe in God.

They look on Genesis as a nice story, perhaps an allegory if you must.

Sorry Zorro, just having a bit of fun.
so what fed these four rivers 6000 years ago.
You really believe Eden and humanity were created 6000 years ago?

Science can create Heaven on Earth.
of course it can also create Hell on Earth.

But the same of Religion, it could attempted to create Heaven on Earth.
But frequently it has been used to create Hell on Earth.

The problem is of course Human Nature, we can choose or bad?

A simple example of the benefit of Science
Would you prefer to go back to the days of no anaesthetic and no antiseptics...and your Doctor informs you your leg has to come off Zorro
I would definitely prefer the science of anaesthetics and antiseptics myself.

we can choose good or bad

the bible belt of the USA is insano version of the bible.
That's the version that atheists always dredge up. Because
you always put forward the worst as an example.

Reading the bible you don't get definite time scales.
you get metaphor and poetry. You get literal and exaggeration.
it's for the man in the year 325 AD and 2017 AD.
God might have given a prophet a digital disc full of schematics
about the construction of everything but it wasn't necessary.
the test paper you are sitting down to in the exam room is called
'faith' those that pass the test get the prize - eternal life.
those that fail that test get the chance to resit the new exam paper
called deeds. the prize is 1000 yrs under the rule of King David's throne.

back to Genesis - from evening to the next day, six days passed and creation was finished. then Adam lived his life and recorded history began in the Jewish old testament. so looking at that literally - i would infer 6000 yrs for the history bit. but what about the creation bit? that's not clearly defined?
Let there be light. and light appeared. that's an awesome start. he started with light. a big bang? what velocity was the light travelling at at the start of that explosion. usually if you explode something like a firework you notice that the initial explosion is massive and then peters out. it dwindles away and fades. entropy. so was light travelling at the same velocity? All past measurements of light has shown it slowing. Therefore a day today might not be the same as a day was 2000 yrs ago, or 6000 yrs ago. the universal constants of today might not be constant. look it up.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/11/fundamental-constants-are-not-constant-or-maybe-they-are-we-dont-know-really/

antibiotics are great. My father had TB in the fifties. in 1940's men died because they didn't have enough streptomycin to treat them. my father went to a sanatorium. In the past you went there to be cut off from society and die. It's all they could do. I think if you watch Somerset Maugham 'trio' the 1950 film you get a sense of what it must have been like.
My grandfather who loved his son, died a broken man after he heard his son had TB. He had seen what TB had done to his generation. He didn't know that the new medicines would cure my father.
So yes - I like a lot of modern medicine. But I try to avoid it as much as possible. I've taken medicines in the past and they are double edged swords that should be taken in emergency circumstances only. I prefer to live a natural life without them.

taking antibiotics for a cold or flu is wasting it for an emergency. It can also blow holes in your intestines. kill good gut flora that's taken years to build up. It doesn't just target the bad stuff.
All pills are poisons. Too much aspirin will kill you. Paracetamol is used a lot in suicides.

A golden age of immunity. will it be sustained? i'm not sure. It might just be a pleasant island, a stop off point before we have to face the storms again.

MacDonald's makes your day.

What do you think of this article DStyle?
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

It goes through various scenarios and concludes with the metal-rich clay theory that you posted in your first post.

I know that organo-metallic compounds play an important role in many life processes today, for example, chlorophyll, Haemoglobin, and haemocyanins found in the blood of some invertebrates.

already been posted, very good read

Sorry, I missed it Scandy, was it your post? I thought it was very well organised and relatively jargon-free.

Foin: it was me who posted the link

it's an excellent piece.

no dumbing down, and thorough.

there are some szostak videos "Origin of life" on youtube if you want more.

I will look them up DStyle. Have always been interested in the biological sciences but was nudged down a different route as a young man by well-meaning teachers.

can you explain why there are scientists including Atheist scientists, not just creationists that have serious reservations about macro evolution. Are they being deliberately obtuse? willful? misguided? When the puzzle pieces do not fit the pretty pattern Darwin has made.
They get philosophical responses as answers and just so stories instead of hard science.
Richard Dawkins when asked for positive mutations couldn't give a response, because he is a sub par biologist that makes up spurious arguments about religion to cover his inadequacy in his chosen field, which he abandoned to be an advocate and writer espousing Darwinism. 
Serious DNA biologists including atheists cannot reconcile the facts with the theory. When that happens it's a warning flag for the theory.

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change: mutation.

The theory may have a few problems. But you cannot just throw it away Zorro.
Someone has to come up with a better explanation that is all.

Religion only relies on faith.
Science demands proof, this is much harder to find.

In other words, mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection can produce major evolutionary changes given enough time. The key element is vast amounts of time -- on a scale that is difficult for most people to imagine. This model of macroevolution is called phyletic gradualism.

ebulGery 03 Nov 16 23:50

The theory may have a few problems. But you cannot just throw it away Zorro.
Someone has to come up with a better explanation that is all.

The above statement seems reasonable.


ebulGery 04 Nov 16 00:04 

Religion only relies on faith.
Science demands proof, this is much harder to find.

But this statement contradicts the first.

We have to accept a theory that has "a few problems" but we must only accept proof?

Sorry, EG. You can't have an each way bet on truth.

What do you mean by truth?

I mean truth in the binary sense. A fact is either true or false. "Don't know" is not an option. That which is not true must be false.

You jumped from accepting a "theory with a few problems" straight to demanding proof.

I see Gallivanter

Well it is Zorro who has the problem with it,

Scientists do not always agree on things, new theories do replace old.

There is usually a consensus view at any one time , currently it is that Darwin was right.

It makes sense to me so I accept it

Nobody knows how life started at the moment

All life competes for limited resources. There are an incredible of different life forms,

from humble Bacteria to humans, animals, plants, some on land some, in the sea, etc.

This contributes to the success of life.


So the question has to be asked was all life individually created by God or has it been created

by the ability of life to mutate to take advantage of different resources.

Darwin believed in mutation so did I. It has got be a more efficient system than God having to painstakingly

create all the varieties of life.


Of course if life on Earth is just a simulation created by some super being, I suppose it is possible

they have created all the mutations. Seems more efficient to me to have life do it for itself.

But to do that, surely it must have the ability to mutate.

It is when we see great changes in the environment, that life mutates the most.

It is a question of adapting to the new environment, or becoming extinct.

The missing links, well when life mutates from one form to another form, the intervening forms would not be retained.

They would only be about a relatively short time, so not so easy to find their fossils

consensus views are meaningless.
one man against everybody else in science is the struggle of science.
Sir Isaac Newton - light theory and gravity... nobody else knew what he did.
Einstein in the patent office - knew the world better than anybody else.
Atheists love Galileo for his battles with the church.
Marie Curie, Pasteur, all fought to get their theories heard.

the outsider is the one that breaks the patterns science sets in stone.
breaking them apart with truth.
my favourite science movie is 'the magic Bullet' the story of Dr Paul Ehrlich who conceived the idea that there was a chemical 'bullet' out there for every disease. a one man powerhouse that found a cure for syphilis which ravaged Europe. EGR.

Steady state model of the universe was the consensus up to 1960's, Big Bang theory replaced it, originally the model at the beginning was trillions of miles across? then they kept revising it down. to thousands of miles of matter, then smaller, now it's a singularity? but some physicists now think the whole theory is bumph? So keep digging is the science message.... because they just don't know anything really. They have patterns and sometimes the patterns work. One medicine can help you and the same medicine will kill your pal.

some physicists now think the whole theory is bumph? So keep digging is the science message.... because they just don't know anything really

They actually know quite a lot Zorro but they don't know everything. Science doesn't claim to know everything unlike many proponents of the God hypothesis which is why science does "keep digging" as you describe research.

MUTATIONS - yes you can evolve quicker - light up a cigarette and get 150 mutations a day.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/smoking-a-pack-a-day-causes-150-dna-mutations-a-year-study-1.3145715

lovely mutations that will propel mankind into the future... we'll be supermen and live forever because a victorian naturalist noticed bird beaks were different. It needed a boat trip? what about at home... didn't he notice people around him looked different?

I'll put my faith in MATHS, PHYSICS and CHEMISTRY in Science before Darwin's Dubious Victorian Theories.

10^260 that one amino can form - God's existence 10^261 ? It has to be greater right? sure it is. We have eye witness testimony and accounts by Roman historians and even Richard Dawkin's admits that Jesus existed. Who witnessed abiogenesis. 10^261? or less?

I think we've bored everyone to death zorro. People will believe what they want. Good luck with the god conjecture, whatever floats your boat.

Darwin's Dubious Victorian Theories.

Yeah, I know ebul Can't expect a leopard to change its spots. At least we tried.

1859 vs 2016

Scientific Theories get revised

philosophies are always with us.