It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chemists claim to have solved riddle of how life began on Earth

page: 4
44
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I thought scientists already knew that given enough time, a 747 would automatically assemble itself, and fly away. Hence, by this logic, we are evolved. We evolved from slime and goo at the bottom of a hole.

It's pretty simple really. We came from anywhere, except from a conscious master called God.

# 390




posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TheWhiteKnight




I thought scientists already knew that given enough time, a 747 would automatically assemble itself, and fly away.


It is real simple. We supposed to believe a being/god infinitely more complex than a 747 automatically assembled itself yet remains invisible/undetectable to us exists and is out there watching everything we do?

I know it seems like a stupid question, but which seems more plausible out of those scenarios. 747 or god?

What are the odds?
edit on 21-3-2015 by Grimpachi because:




posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   
I worry about the synthetic life being created !

www.theguardian.com...

www.ted.com...

I have always supported the theory of Panspermia from first encountering the theory many many years ago.

Great post



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: TheWhiteKnight




I thought scientists already knew that given enough time, a 747 would automatically assemble itself, and fly away.


It is real simple. We supposed to believe a being/god infinitely more complex than a 747 automatically assembled itself yet remains invisible/undetectable to us exists and is out there watching everything we do?

I know it seems like a stupid question, but which seems more plausible out of those scenarios. 747 or god?

What are the odds?

God, once you account for the fact the 747 self assembly would have to be done under the laws of this universe, and God lives outside this universe where the rules of this one do not necessarily apply.

Either way the only question is were all the nucleic acids created ONLY right handed? If they were, this is meaningful, if they were not, then it's 100% impossible for life to have formed in these conditions.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Autorico
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

If the Vatican can say that the belief in ETs doesn't go against god, they can do the same for this.


It's the most simple and groundbreaking evidence that helps explain how our universe and life work that the church can use to help better explain God. If something may not exist, yet billions believe it does, what better way to benefit your belief than to say that it helps your belief, eventhough it contradicts it on face value. In the God sense, because Earth was his creation, he allowed for all life to live here, while also making man in his image, which evolution still hasn't pieced together the entire way humans evolved to being what we are today. But I agree, all scientific breakthrough will still be accredited by the church to help explain God and his ways of letting us have Free Will over our thoughts and aspirations. As he will still judge the mne who aspires to disprove him.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




God, once you account for the fact the 747 self assembly would have to be done under the laws of this universe, and God lives outside this universe where the rules of this one do not necessarily apply.


Once someone can show some evidence that a god lives then we can have that conversation about it living outside of the universe.

One step at a time.




Either way the only question is were all the nucleic acids created ONLY right handed? If they were, this is meaningful, if they were not, then it's 100% impossible for life to have formed in these conditions.


How about explaining why right handed nucleic acids are important? Now watch the left hand.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Autorico
a reply to: SirKonstantin

I'm open to learning about all religion/faith/spirituality ideas.


Then let's not exclude the number one prehistoric religion, the one that nearly all indigenous humans on this planet practiced, and many still do today, though the marauding monotheists have been trying to 'convert' them for thousands of years:

Animists



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quadlink
I worry about the synthetic life being created !

www.theguardian.com...

www.ted.com...

I have always supported the theory of Panspermia from first encountering the theory many many years ago.

Great post


Be worried if natural life is seen on the same legal ground as synthetic or A.I. life. If we are able to kill synthetic life without getting into trouble then there should be no problem, however I believe all synthetic life will have an owner, there fore will be anpother's property. SO if A.I. pushes you you couldn't blow it's head off unless you wanted to pay the coorporation for ruining their device. sounds expensive to me.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheWhiteKnight
I thought scientists already knew that given enough time, a 747 would automatically assemble itself, and fly away. Hence, by this logic, we are evolved. We evolved from slime and goo at the bottom of a hole.

It's pretty simple really. We came from anywhere, except from a conscious master called God.

# 390


On the contrary, I believe God, as it were, is in our DNA
Which comes from the stars, like everything else in our bodies.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

Once someone can show some evidence that a god lives then we can have that conversation about it living outside of the universe.

One step at a time.

Not trying to turn this topic into a religious debate, merely pointing out the Bible claims God comes from outside this Universe, so Him self assembling under the laws of this Universe is a rd herring.




How about explaining why right handed nucleic acids are important? Now watch the left hand.

Because life requires 100% left handed or 100% right handed nucleic acids. Life on Earth is comprised of 100% right handed versions. Even 1 nucleic acid of the opposite hand is enough to prevent life. So far the only way they can make life happen on it's own is to say life came before chirality, which is more avoiding the problem than addressing it, since 100% of all life is chiral, without exception.


At a chemical level, a deep bias permeates all of biology. The molecules that make up DNA and other nucleic acids such as RNA have an inherent “handedness.” These molecules can exist in two mirror image forms, but only the right-handed version is found in living organisms. Handedness serves an essential function in living beings; many of the chemical reactions that drive our cells only work with molecules of the correct handedness. But the pre-biological building blocks of life didn’t exhibit such an overwhelming bias. Some were left-handed and some right. So how did right-handed RNA emerge from a mix of molecules?

Joyce was able to build RNA out of right-handed building blocks, as others had done before him. But when he added in left-handed molecules, mimicking the conditions on the early Earth, everything came to a halt. “Our paper said if you have [both] forms in the same place at the same time, you can’t even get started,” Joyce said.

www.scientificamerican.com...

I hope that helps.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 03:38 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse


The difference between simple life and very highly sophisticated beings is incomprehensible.

Know Your Fallacy



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: donhuangenaro

funny thing how scientists hate creationism, but in the same time they practice - creationism...

That's ludicrous. Creationism entails divine origin.

Science doesn't hate Creationism, it loves Truth. Blame your particular religion's account for creation lacking in evidence.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: rickymouse


The difference between simple life and very highly sophisticated beings is incomprehensible.

Know Your Fallacy


Yeah, someone should give this info you linked to the people who are saying the life they can create is real and equivalent to the life that exists here on earth. Their research only shows how organic matter, void of any consciousness, can be created. What loaded the complex computer program that makes even a fungus cell so complex? Even the smallest microbes have sofisticated immune systems and can communicate with other microbes.

Now this has nothing to do with creationism, it has to do with a communication and advancement between life that developed. A single cell with no functional DNA or advanced RNA is not that impressive.
edit on 22-3-2015 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Elton
Phys.org

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.


Wait, what!!?!


they believe they have found a way to show that everything necessary for life to evolve could have done so from just hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide and ultraviolet light and that those building blocks could have all existed at the same time—in their paper, they report that using just those three basic ingredients they were able to produce more than 50 nucleic acids—precursors to DNA and RNA molecules.



They note that early meteorites carried with them ingredients that would react with nitrogen already in the atmosphere, producing a lot of hydrogen cyanide. By dissolving in water, it could have very easily come into contact with hydrogen sulfide, while being exposed to ultraviolet light from the sun. And that, they claim, would have been all that was needed to get things going.


Pretty exciting news, if it is confirmed by other scientists this shows a working (theoretical) beginning of life, abiogenesis anyone?

Abstract of paper: nature.com


I'm an atheist but this sounds so ridiculous it's embarrassing. Why can't "science" simply admit there are some things it doesn't know and may never know? Sure, keep looking, but to come up with desperate, pathetic (and not to mention, impossible) explanations like this one does nothing to foster confidence in what science can do.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Elton

When will peeps see there is an intelligence in nature. There is an intelligence is evolution unto itself. It happens on vast time scales but its very real. Nature apadpts and problem solves. Its not a random act of chemistry

purp.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Visiting ESB

Because if we didn't even bother trying we'd still be banging rocks together. What exactly is your criticism of the paper? It's rather bold of you to dismiss it as "desperate, pathetic and impossible" out of hand like that.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I tried to trow these news around, but people would say no:

"Scientists waste their time around, god made everything."

For freaking sake.... Anyway, nice find, maybe they could do this to proove that life is not something out of ordinary.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: donhuangenaro

funny thing how scientists hate creationism, but in the same time they practice - creationism...

That's ludicrous. Creationism entails divine origin.

Science doesn't hate Creationism, it loves Truth. Blame your particular religion's account for creation lacking in evidence.


Science isn't really concerned with truth. It is focused upon knowledge (whether true or false).

I seem to recall mention of a logical condition that science's theories must be falsifiable.

And we all know that every scientific theory gets discarded and replaced with newer understandings and it happens all the time, so how could it be truth?

Religions love truths. Science doesn't give a damn.


edit on 22/3/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: donhuangenaro

funny thing how scientists hate creationism, but in the same time they practice - creationism...

That's ludicrous. Creationism entails divine origin.

Science doesn't hate Creationism, it loves Truth. Blame your particular religion's account for creation lacking in evidence.


Science isn't really concerned with truth. It is focused upon knowledge (whether true or false).

I seem to recall mention of a logical condition that its theories must be falsifiable.

And we all know that every theory gets discarded and replaced with newer understandings and it happens all the time, so how could it be truth?

Religions love truths. Science doesn't give a damn.



Pretty much this. Nothing on science is truth (except for computes and stuff liek that we use thanks to them). The main goal of science is to understand things that no living being should ever understand and to turn our lifes into something bettter.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Outrageo

Nice link.




top topics



 
44
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join