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.

 

Mystery of how life on Earth began solved by British scientists

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Researchers led by John Sutherland at Manchester University have demonstrated the mechanism that led to the first living, breathing creatures – a process attributed by generations of evolutionary theorists, including Charles Darwin, to an unexplained primordial soup.

The team has broken new ground by being able to synthesise two of the four building blocks of RNA, the self-replicating molecule that many scientist believe to be the most likely contender for the original molecule of life. Dr Sutherland believes that he has shown how it was possible to make all the building blocks of RNA from the simple chemicals that existed on Earth at the time.~from source

Stumbled across this,seems like quite a breakthrough.

Link~www.telegraph.co.uk...


Regards to all




posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
He did not even explain how RNA forms...

?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Well hopefully soon we can abandon all these invisible man "God" religions and get on with making ourselves imortal and start exploring the universe instead of being afraid of technologly like they feared witches way back when. We are Gods, can be if we decide to get on with it before some event makes us extinct.

100-500 years they will look back on us as we do primitive peoples who believed in Hurcules, witchcraft or even worsphip of the sun.

Hopefully science and knowledge will someday wake up the masses. This is one such discovery than can help us to open our minds to our true potential.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
the reality is science hasn't created life from scrach yet there getting closer and closer .
I wonder what the religious people will say when they do it will be soon .
after all only god can create life isnt that right?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
I wish i could deflag this thread.

Misleading title.

they didnt SOLVE the problem.

They conjured up 2 out of the 4.

and this was done in a lab.

So me life spontaneously creating on its own in nature and then I will go



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by FeatheredSerpent
 

It does sound like a breakthrough.

"And so for 40 or so years they have worked on the problem and have become so frustrated that they have decided that RNA, although very desirable, is just too complicated and so there must have been a simpler molecule that spawned RNA. We've just changed the order of assembly of the pieces, but it's overcome the dogma that it cannot be done," he said.


But I agree the title is WAAAAAY misleading. They made some progress but to say they SOLVED it is a gross exaggeration. I'd say it's a blatant lie.


Originally posted by xxcalbier
I wonder what the religious people will say when they do it will be soon. after all only god can create life isnt that right?
Yes but if God created life than who created God? Oops don't answer that, this isn't the religion forum.

I don't see scientists creating life from scratch in our lifetimes. It took nature perhaps a billion years running "experiments" on millions of places all over Earth under various conditions until something happened. Duplicating what took Nature a billion years to do, in a laboratory in a few years or in a lifetime will be no easy feat.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by FeatheredSerpent
 


Thanks OP for posting this. I enjoy these topics.


Alas, here comes those darn questions:

"We've made the building blocks of RNA from what was around on the early Earth and is still around in interstellar space..."

Is this a surprise? We are made up of stuff on the planet and space as a whole? What else are we going to be made up of?

"We haven't yet made the RNA molecule itself but we've made two of the four sub-units or building blocks. It suggests that making the molecule is possible."

A+ for effort but perhaps a little premature? After they make one will they be able to link them?

Science is wonderful but I fear we are still in the "what" stage of most investigation. "When", "Where", and "Why" will prove much more challenging.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
For all those who do believe in evolution, it means we are in a dog eat dog universe and that alien life will be competing with us for resources. We better hope to gain some advantages or we'll be extinct one day.

Basically if the evolution theory is correct, then life should arise wherever the right conditions exist long enough. We still don't know what exactly are the right conditions and what must happen apparently.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by orionthehunter]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
I wish i could deflag this thread.

Misleading title.

they didnt SOLVE the problem.

They conjured up 2 out of the 4.

and this was done in a lab.

So me life spontaneously creating on its own in nature and then I will go



I used the title from the source like you would in breaking news,wasnt to mislead.

Regards to all



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Yes but if God created life than who created God? Oops don't answer that, this isn't the religion forum.

God created itself, or came from nothing - much like the universe. Perhaps the two are one and the same?

You think it logical for the universe to have come from nothing but yet you ask who made god?

[edit on 1/6/10 by Nventual]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Nventual
 


Who said anything about the universe coming from nothing? Way to put words into someone's mouth... Many scientists think the universe is indeed eternal. Which does mesh well with the Deist concept of God. However it contradicts the Judaeo-Christian concept of an anthropomorphized God.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven
Well hopefully soon we can abandon all these invisible man "God" religions and get on with making ourselves imortal and start exploring the universe instead of being afraid of technologly like they feared witches way back when. We are Gods, can be if we decide to get on with it before some event makes us extinct.

100-500 years they will look back on us as we do primitive peoples who believed in Hurcules, witchcraft or even worsphip of the sun.

Hopefully science and knowledge will someday wake up the masses. This is one such discovery than can help us to open our minds to our true potential.



How does deliberately engineering life in a laboratory under set of controlled conditions disprove the existence of a god? They just proved that life is capable of being intelligently created/designed. It disproves god no more than the existence of monkeys disproves evolution.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 05:44 AM
link   
This is old news. The paper was published May 14th 2009. It has been discussed here already.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Son of Will
reply to post by Nventual
 


Who said anything about the universe coming from nothing? Way to put words into someone's mouth... Many scientists think the universe is indeed eternal. Which does mesh well with the Deist concept of God. However it contradicts the Judaeo-Christian concept of an anthropomorphized God.

So it's logical to think the universe always existed? I don't see why the same can't be said about god.
My point was that certain people can apply these rules to the creation/whatever of the universe but like to ask questions like "who created god" and think it's a witty question that stumps a religious person.

However yes it does contradict the Christian belief of god. For me though I don't see any reason why a "creator" can't exist using the same rules applied to the existence of the universe, since that creator would eiher be a "self-aware" universe or at the least be connected to it.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Yes but if God created life than who created God?

The great mistake these "critical-thinkers" make is in assuming that that Nature follows human logic, and that God must — for some unfathomable reason — follow human logic.

Human logic has never explained anything except to the satisfaction of humans, and humans are perhaps the most weak-minded creatures in Nature. We can't even coexist harmoniously with the millions of other life forms on this planet. Our best human logic today, as has been noted earlier, will be a laughingstock in centuries to come. Strike that... In DECADES to come.

Which means that our best arguments against the existence of God will be a laughingstock, as well. I'm fairly certain that the existence of God will eventually be proven rather than disproven by our Science (but not for a long time yet).

Who created God? Perhaps nothing existed before God. Only human logic tells us that everything must have a beginning and an end. Which is absurd.

Science does not understand — nor CAN it understand — the origin of Life. They can't replicate Life in the lab from scratch, in spite of the ridiculous "artificial Life" stories you see in the headlines. Stories such as the one featured in the OP describe Man's arrogance more than it announces a "breakthrough"... Even I can place one brick atop another, but I'll never build the Great Wall of China.

Just so, British researchers may have sort of synthesized 2 of the 4 important components of RNA; but even if they synthesize all four components, it STILL won't be "alive"... Mark my words. They'll have to inject their "creation" into a pre-existing living cell.

In every instance of Mankind "creating Life" in the lab, all we ever do is juggle pre-existing life forms. Oil-eating bacteria? We never "created" any such life form in the lab — we just tweaked an existing bacterium, taught it to jump through a hoop.

The more I hear of Mankind's advances in "creating Life in the lab," the more I'm reminded of the old sideshow scam they used to call a "flea circus"...





— Doc Velocity






[edit on 6/1/2010 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Just so, British researchers may have sort of synthesized 2 of the 4 important components of RNA; but even if they synthesize all four components, it STILL won't be "alive"... Mark my words. They'll have to inject their "creation" into a pre-existing living cell.

Incorrect. Those nucleotides will stick together spontaneously and given enough time an autocatalytic RNA molecule will rise. That'll be life and from there on Darwinian evolution will apply.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by rhinoceros]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Incorrect. Those nucleotides will stick together spontaneously and given enough time an autocatalytic RNA molecule will rise. That'll be life and from there on Darwinian evolution will apply.

"Given enough time"... That's the catch. I can throw a handful of brick dust into a bucket of water and, given enough time, Marilyn Monroe will emerge.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Incorrect. Those nucleotides will stick together spontaneously and given enough time an autocatalytic RNA molecule will rise. That'll be life and from there on Darwinian evolution will apply.

"Given enough time"... That's the catch. I can throw a handful of brick dust into a bucket of water and, given enough time, Marilyn Monroe will emerge.
— Doc Velocity

An autocatalytic RNA molecule will not have to be very long (not even 1000 basepairs) and only parts of it are critical to folding. If billions of these molecules form spontaneously in some small pond and there are millions of these small ponds it will not take very long at all for a rise of autocatalytic RNA molecule.

But if you reckon that it's more likely that there is some conscious being out there that has just always existed and creates Universes and life and what not (talking snakes, flying giant camels, guys with elephant heads, etc.) then be my guest. Of course this being also did everything it could to hide the fact that it had done anything at all. Instead it made it seem as if everything had happened by natural means. To me it sounds pretty fishy (like the most improbable thing ever). Much more likely is that the Universe came to be because of some imperfection in nothingness (as nothing is perfect, if you disagree name one non-abstract thing that is perfect). Imperfection of nothingness does away with the first cause paradox as non-existence needs no cause. Due to an another imperfection (imperfect symmetry of the big bang) anti matter didn't annihilate all matter and thus hydrogen atoms came to be. Again due to the imperfect nature of the big bang all that hydrogen didn't spread evenly and thus gravity started lumping stuff together. First stars were born and in their cores first heavy atoms were made. Some star generations later there were enough heavy elements for life (as we know it) to exist. This particular solar system formed and in the 3rd (and maybe 4th) planet environment favoured reactions that led to autocatalytic RNA molecules. From there on it's a story about mutations and selective pressure towards greater reproductive output. And here we are, ultimately because something went awfully wrong in nothingness. To me it makes perfect sense. Well a lot more sense than this hypothetical mystery being anyways which makes things just a lot more complicated and improbable. And by the way, saying God has just always existed and needs no first cause is just wishful thinking and totally irrational.


[edit on 1-6-2010 by rhinoceros]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by FeatheredSerpent
 


Maybe I was a little harsh.

I would like to point out an opinion that might help you understand my position.

I believe there is a fallacy in how this debate is formed.

I personally believe that, as conscious and intelligent life, it is our destiny to unlock and reproduce all of the phenomena in the universe. Isnt that what science is all about? Being able to consciously do what the universe does?

Not to long ago scientist created the first artificial organism. And I'll wager that we will keep progressing. So to me, this wouldn't end the debate of science vs god.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by FeatheredSerpent
 


Maybe I was a little harsh.

Not to long ago scientist created the first artificial organism. And I'll wager that we will keep progressing. So to me, this wouldn't end the debate of science vs god.


Actually I think that was ANOTHER misleading headline.

FeatheredSerpent, thanks for the reply, and yes we know you didn't dream up the title so we don't blame you, the criticism was aimed at whoever came up with the title. However, while you are required to copy the title exactly in the breaking news forum, that requirement doesn't apply to the other forums like this one, if you ever decide you want to use a better title. So you do have that option. But I fault the original author, not you. Thanks for the info, it is progress, just not as much as the sensational title claims.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join