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

I don't see how this solves anything. Even the scientists themselves admit there's a huge gap between having the necessary components for life and defining the catalyst for life.

In other words, they really have no clue (still). But they sure like to sound like they do, don't they? And of course, the Bible-bashing Atheist circle jerk ensues post haste. Sometimes I think people who commit themselves to Science do so simply to be in a fraternity that hates God (nowadays, that is--most of the old timers still believed).

Anyway.

The thread title contributes heavily to the tone taken in many of the comments; a title deliberately worded to make it sound like "they've got it all figured out without any help from the Big Man". And the Atheists are running with it, despite the obvious gaping hole in the whole thing.

They will never figure it out (a confident prediction). It is an unsolvable mystery using the scientific method.

originally posted by: NthOther
I don't see how this solves anything.

I don't think it's about solving anything. I think it's about them finding one more piece to the puzzle. That's how it works, one piece at a time, slowly building to a better and more complete picture.

In other words, they really have no clue (still).

Well, actually it sounds like "a clue" is exactly what they have. Or even better than a clue, what they have is something called "Evidence". Repeatable, Testable Scientific Evidence.

The thread title contributes heavily to the tone taken in many of the comments; a title deliberately worded to make it sound like "they've got it all figured out without any help from the Big Man". And the Atheists are running with it, despite the obvious gaping hole in the whole thing.

You're obviously upset with what these scientists have reported on but that's no reason to take it out on "Atheists" or anyone else who finds it interesting. You seem to be upset with "their tone", whoever they are, but your tone seems to be a little less than kind as well.

Nobody claimed to have it "all figured out either". Nor did these scientists say anything about "The Big Man".

They will never figure it out (a confident prediction). It is an unsolvable mystery using the scientific method.

Maybe you're right. Maybe they will never figure it out, who knows. They do seem to be building up a pretty good theory however. So what's the harm in them trying???

So it's still all just theory....nothing proven at all.

I'm sure there are plenty who will lap it up.

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

a reply to: Imjustatoaster

So it's still all just theory....nothing proven at all.

Sorry, no. It is NOT "all just theory".

It is all HYPOTHESIS.

a reply to: donhuangenaro

funny thing how scientists hate creationism

No. Your premise is wrong from the get go.

, but in the same time they practice - creationism...

Wrong again.

But hey, thanks for playing.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

This is very interesting, although I still won't be entirely convinced until they are able to fully reproduce it and create life from non-living compounds.

You'll probably never be convinced then. Creating life is not the end game. Why would we want to do that? What would be the PURPOSE of it?

Studying how it happens gives us insight into how biology works at a very detailed level. It contributes to knowledge about ourselves and can lead to insights about disease and growth and even psychology. What would be gained by 'creating' an artificial life form?

I guess I'm not saying that it will never be done, I just don't see why anyone would want to bother creating a new life form from scratch.

a reply to: rnaa

Why would it be "creating an artificial life form" if they are just replicating what supposedly happened in the first place?

Why would it be artificial.

What you said doesn't make sense.

This makes it so much more likely that there is life on other planets.

a reply to: Elton

Am I wrong, or has this been proved before? And dismissed for political reasons?

F&S&

a reply to: SirKonstantin
As far as Transhumanism goes, what could the implications be from this find? Will they let life grow in their labs using this method, and then possible merge said organisms with electronic technologies of some sort?

What are your thoughts everyone? How does Transhumanism and Posthumanism tie into this in your minds?

a reply to: Elton
I find you article inspiring but the life on earth be so complex I still feel had a helping hand. Call it God , extra terrestrials, r what have you but I still feel some part missing. Being my opinion only. But still great OP.

a reply to: Elton
How true this is obvious that life begins naturally..............but ISNT this presumption obvious.......cmon people and researchers......we want to know the modifications or synthesized optimizations that have taken place.....let's not reinvent the wheel.......we already know life is created by a natural process.

For the love of God (no pun intended), learn that your human brain isn't capable of comprehending the origins of life.

Science has its limitations, learn that, too.

a reply to: SensiblyReckless

The origin of life isn't just a scientific question, it's also a philosophical question, and I do believe we have the capacity to understand it.

a reply to: Elton

This article describes the process of self assembly which is a recognized phenomenon in nature. You don't need a creator or some galactic guru to create life. It pops up all by itself, probably throughout the entire universe.

dlr.de...

22 Molecular Self-Assembly and the Origin of Life
Wolfgang M. Heckl

„All things began in order, so shall they end, and so shall they begin again; according
to the ordainer of order and mystical mathematics of the city of heaven“
(Sir Thomas Browne 1658)

Nanoarchitectonics is a new interdisciplinary field within the NanoSciences, which
investigates the principles responsible for the formation of higher-ordered functional
structures starting from their nanoscopic building blocks like atoms and molecules.
Such a bottom up approach is new within the field of contemporary technology, which
has used very successfully the top down strategy for the miniaturization of fabrication
processes during the last hundred years. However, nature has always worked bottom
up, where the principles of self-assembly lead to crystal growth in the inorganic world,
and, via molecular self-assembly, to functional structures in biology. For instance, the
three-dimensional architecture of a nanomachine called the ribosome comprises the
natural molecular assembler, which organizes the transition from the DNA informational
blueprint into polypeptides and other functional units. To understand and make
technological use of the underlying mechanism of this process is one of the major
goals of modern Proteomics, where the relation between the DNA base sequence and
the respective protein must be mastered. One approach to this question is to simplify
the process by transferring it into a two-dimensional scenario, thus reducing the complexity
of the three-dimensional architecture to an in-plane problem. Such a reduced
coordination space may also be adequate for a primordial soup scenario, where the
spontaneous self-assembly of abiotically produced organic compounds may be facilitated.
The formation of highly ordered monolayers of the purine and pyrimidine DNA
bases through physisorption mediated molecular self-assembly at a solid-liquid mineral
interface and the subsequent stereospecific adsorption of amino acids is an example for
the spontaneous creation of nanoscale order. We have proposed a functional role of
this process for the emergence of life that may also lead towards the construction of
genetically based supramolecular architectures for modern technical applications [1-4].

a reply to: Imjustatoaster

Why would it be "creating an artificial life form" if they are just replicating what supposedly happened in the first place?

Why would it be artificial.

For the same reason that man-made diamonds are 'artificial diamonds'.
For the same reason that man-made intelligence is 'artificial intellegence'.

Because they are MAN made, not NATURE made.

Furthermore, if someone did create such a life form from scratch, and it was confirmed by other researchers, they would have demonstrated that one possibility definitely works. They would not have demonstrated that specific process was THE ONE abiogenesis event that actually did occur. There may be dozens of pathways that lead to life on earth as we know it.

What you said reflects a lack of thought.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
we discovered fusion and created the atomic bomb. what will we create with this discovery?

A viable theory of pre-biotic chemical evolution which will not only tell us much about how life got started on Earth but guide us in the search for life in our galaxy and the universe in general.


This research and other research like it is highly important to field of astrobiology because if confirmed, it can provide a big piece to the puzzle and question of how likely it is that life evolves in favorable environments.

We have very good rules, laws and theories of physics and chemistry which are universal in nature and because of that we can make models, predictions and observations which confirm or refute them about distant places in the universe. This is how we can make measurements and obtain detailed information about galaxies, stars and planets far from Earth.

We have always lacked anything like that in biology.

Early biology has always lacked anything like that. This could go a long way towards bringing biology into line with physics and chemistry.

Chemistry shows us the molecules of inorganic bodies uniting to produce crystals of regular forms that are invariable for each species, as soon as those molecules find themselves in the conditions necessary to their combination. The slightest disturbance of those conditions suffices to prevent the union of the material elements, or, at least, to prevent the regular arrangement of the latter which constitutes the crystal. Why should not the same action take place among the organic elements? we preserve for years the seeds of plants and of animals, which are only vivified at a certain temperature and under certain conditions: grains of wheat have been seen to germinate after the lapse of centuries. There is, then, in seeds a latent principle of vitality, which only awaits the concourse of favorable circumstances to develop itself. May not that which takes place under our eyes every day have also taken place at the origin of the globe?

Does this view of the formation of living beings brought forth out of chaos by the action of the forces of nature itself detract in any way from the glory of God? So far from doing this, the view of creation thus presented to us is more consonant than any other with our sense of the vastness of His power exerting its sway over all the worlds of infinity through the action of universal laws. This theory, it is true, does not solve the problem of the origin of the vital elements, but nature has mysteries which it is as yet impossible for us to explain. - kardec

Were the nucleic acids 100% right handed? It doesn't mention this. If they are not, then this is 100% not how it happened.