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.
Originally posted by jiggerj
Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by micmerci
We don't know exactly how it works yet. But we will, in time, just like with so many other things in the past.
What frustrates me is that we can reverse engineer almost everything. Why can't we tear apart a living cell and be able to say, AHA, That's how it works! ?
Originally posted by SplitInfinity
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by Aim64C
The fact that it is a complex chemical process does not change the fact that it is a chemical process.
No the fact the chemical process is impossible means the chemical process can't happen. It is still a chemical process, just one that never occured. There are things we can create in labs that do not exist in nature because the process required can never happen by random chance.
O.C....OUCH! You of all people should know that if there is even the slightest possibility it can happen....PROBABILITY DICTATES IT MUST HAPPEN! Mathematical and Physical Law of a Multiverse or even Universe. Split Infinity
Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
I am surprised that you have not heard of the multitude of claimed College and University experiments that are awaiting confirmation on creating GENESIS. Now I for one feel that a good majority of these have either not run a proper control group or have been able to have a proper CLEAN ROOM or EVENT CONTAINMENT that would assure that there is no contamination of the experiment.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by SplitInfinity
Do those genesis creating experiments occur randomly by chance on their own? or would you say there is a designer or creator of the genesis?
Originally posted by DaveNorris
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
im sorry but im not reading that. its made by a creationist group, therefore they have an agenda to discredit evolution. if you can provide a reliable source then ill be more than happen to read through it
Originally posted by DaveNorris
although, they are not an impartial party either.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by bias12
Please show me where irreducible complexity as it pertains to abiogenesis has been refuted. Just give me a source.
You are completely correct! The fact that the agent is unidentified certainly doesn't mean there is no evidence for intelligent design. I suppose, from your point of view, it's just an unfortunate coincidence that there really is no evidence for an intelligent process behind the origin of life whatsoever
Perhaps you still believe rain is just your god crying?
The physical phenomena we don't understand yet, we're working on, have some patience.
The fact that irreducible complexity in biology has been refuted by science at large is a well known fact. See the case notes for Kitzmiller v. Dover if you would like to see professor Behe's disastrous testimony.
Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetases (aaRS): aaRS enzymes are responsible for charging tRNAs with the proper amino acid so they can accurately participate in the process of translation. In this function, aaRSs are an “aminoacylation machine.”20 Most cells require twenty different aaRS enzymes, one for each amino acid, without which the transcription/translation machinery could not function properly.21 As one article in Cell Biology International stated: “The nucleotide sequence is also meaningless without a conceptual translative scheme and physical ‘hardware’ capabilities. Ribosomes, tRNAs, aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, and amino acids are all hardware components of the Shannon message ‘receiver’. But the instructions for this machinery is itself coded in DNA and executed by protein ‘workers’ produced by that machinery. Without the machinery and protein workers, the message cannot be received and understood. And without genetic instruction, the machinery cannot be assembled.”22 Arguably, these components form an irreducibly complex system.23
F0F1 ATP Synthase: According to cell biologist and molecular machine modeler David Goodsell, “ATP synthase is one of the wonders of the molecular world.”37 This protein-based molecular machine is actually composed of two distinct rotary motors which joined by a stator: As the F0 motor is powered by protons, it turns the F1 motor. This kinetic energy is used like a generator to synthesize adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the primary energy carrying molecule of cells.38
Findings of Kitzmiller v. Dover
I was disappointed to find that this thread is not really about debating the science of the first living cell, and appears to be yet another topic in which the proposal of ancient designers is prevalent. Surely that is more of a cryptozoology or religious conspiracy type matter?
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by bias12
It's a vanishing group of biologists that cling to the "anti-intelligent" thesis. Physicists and mathematicians that regularly handle statistics and readily defined systems take one look at cellular mechanics and say: "Yeah, that didn't come about by chance."
However - if it is a law that leads to abiogenesis... why has this process stopped? Why should chemical processes still not lead to primitive life