Evolution 1, Creationism 0.

Owen

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/13/2112215

Scientists have assembled RNA from a pseudo primordial soup - which is pretty much how evolutionists say life originated on earth. Nice.

Mickeroo

Great discovery and that, but anyone with half a brain knows creationism is guff

marco_polo

ned78 wrote: »

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/13/2112215

Scientists have assembled RNA from a pseudo primordial soup - which is pretty much how evolutionists say life originated on earth. Nice.

1-0 Ned? I think you may have missed a few goals, it was about 240,000-0 last time I checked on teletext

Nice link though.

Overblood

marco_polo wrote: »

1-0 Ned? I think you may have missed a few goals, it was about 240,000-0 last time I checked on teletext

I thought it was closer to 23,000,023,023,232 - 0?????

marco_polo

Overblood wrote: »

I thought it was closer to 23,000,023,023,232 - 0?????

I only saw the score at half time, they must have tired in the second half.

Zillah

marco_polo wrote: »

1-0 Ned? I think you may have missed a few goals, it was about 240,000-0 last time I checked on teletext

Nice link though.

This is exactly what I was thinking. How the hell could anyone consider it 1-0

ps, Ned is the moderator of A&A

Owen

Zillah wrote: »

Ned is the moderator of A&A

Aviation & Aircraft, not Atheism & Agnosticism

philologos

Not to nitpick, but abiogenesis is different to evolution isn't it (i.e life coming from non-life rather than life developing and forming through natural selection)?

seamus

Well, it's another link in the chain. A standard ad hominem attack against evolution, primarily used by those who completely disagree with evolution*, is to retreat to first principles and ask, "How did life come about in the first place if it wasn't there before?". They then extrapolate that if their god created life in the first place, he must have created life as it is now, and not waited for evolution to take place.

*As opposed to those who accept evolution but disagree on the origins of life

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Not to nitpick, but abiogenesis is different to evolution isn't it (i.e life coming from non-life rather than life developing and forming through natural selection)?

It is, but one of the Creationist calling cards is that abiogenesis cannot happen, therefore evolution could not have happened.

Evolution is a process, like river erosion. If it is impossible for the process to start then the process itself is some what irrelevant (like modelling what would happen if a river ran up hill)

AtomicHorror

Add this to the stuff Gerald Joyce and company are doing with self-replicating RNAs and the abiogenesis story is really coming together!

Borneo Fnctn

This is really groundbreaking news. I'm thrilled to hear about this. I wonder if it will make the 9 o' clock news tough...

AtomicHorror

jackpalance wrote: »

This is really groundbreaking news. I'm thrilled to hear about this. I wonder if it will make the 9 o' clock news tough...

If they manage to pull of RNA abiogenesis from start to finish, it'll make the 9 o' clock news. And estrange science from the major religions again for the first time in about 150 years :pac:

philologos

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If they manage to pull of RNA abiogenesis from start to finish, it'll make the 9 o' clock news. And estrange science from the major religions again for the first time in about 150 years :pac:

I don't see how this follows at all. I don't see how such a discovery would weaken the case for God at all.

Mickeroo

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how this follows at all. I don't see how such a discovery would weaken the case for God at all.

It would show that life stemmed from, well, no life all on it's own.

I guess in terms of Deism it might not really weaken the case,but the more extravagent gods of the major religions wouldn't look quite so powerful anymore.

AtomicHorror

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how this follows at all. I don't see how such a discovery would weaken the case for God at all.

You just love to pick irrelevant points to argue don't you? I was joking. I'm fully confident of the capacity of religious people to doublethink the relevance abiogenesis away. Sure, there'll be a new wave of fundies, reacting like the creationists did to evolution. But tbh, they're just the ones who have figured out that the rest of you are just going to be retreating forever from science. The ones who decided to draw a line. The stand they're making is pointless and hopeless, but then so is the God of the Gaps.

There you go. Now we can have a proper row.

Borneo Fnctn

Zeus lived on Mount Olympus. Man climbed the mountain and he wasn't there.

It turns out he was in the clouds. Man Reached the clouds. He wasn't there.

God created the earth 6000 years ago. This was disproved.

It turns out God created the universe 14 billion years ago. But he definitely created life. Nobody can do this but god.

So when abiogenesis is figured out, religion will retreat further just like it always has to.

kiffer

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how this follows at all. I don't see how such a discovery would weaken the case for God at all.

Because it removes the arguments from ignorance and from incredulity that many religious people use to say life cannot come from non-life with out the magic-spark from God.

As the various abiogenesis hypotheses are strengthened by discoveries like this one it become harder and stupider for people to say things like "We don't know of any way that natural processes could produce life from non-life, So God must have done it!"

It closes another Gap... from the atheist point of view putting another nail in God's coffin ... for this reason alone religious people will decry it.

Of course religious people that accept or don't care where life came from will not be too affected by these things... For example ones that believe that God created the universe and let nature take its course until humans eventually appeared (just as God new they would) and then he sent visions and revelations to the humans...

But generally even non-creationist Christians say things like without God's actual interaction non-life can not become life...


Just because you don't understand the chemistry doesn't mean it can't happen...
Also just because it can happen doesn't mean it did happen...

Obni

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how such a discovery would weaken the case for God at all.

Nobody mentioned god. The OP mentioned that the discovery was one-in-the-eye for creationism, and atomichorror made a similar point about major religions.
The case for god remains as strong as ever.

Lobelia Overhill

ah but sure you're all missing the point, God put the RNA there in the first place.

:pac:

AtomicHorror

Lobelia Overhill wrote: »

ah but sure you're all missing the point, God put the RNA there in the first place.

:pac:

No... that's what this paper is ruling out! And since we have naturalistic explanations for where the bits the make up the nucleotides of RNA come from that leaves very few gaps to fit God into. Once abiogenesis is down, the Big Bang is all that's left basically. :pac:

Zillah

If the Catholic Church is happy to say that God guides a process that requires no guidance (evolution) then I'm sure they'll be happy to say that he triggered a process that requires no trigger.

AtomicHorror

Zillah wrote: »

If the Catholic Church is happy to say that God guides a process that requires no guidance (evolution) then I'm sure they'll be happy to say that he triggered a process that requires no trigger.

Yes, well they've pre-empted aliens so I'm sure abiogenesis won't be a problem.

robindch

In honor of this, shouldn't we rename him the "God of the gap"?

Lobelia Overhill

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No... that's what this paper is ruling out! And since we have naturalistic explanations for where the bits the make up the nucleotides of RNA come from that leaves very few gaps to fit God into. Once abiogenesis is down, the Big Bang is all that's left basically. :pac:

So did God write the paper then?

Or did he cause the Big Bang by clapping his hands?

I'm confused

:pac:

OK-Cancel-Apply

Where can I try some of this 'Primordial Soup'? Sounds delish

Borneo Fnctn

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Where can I try some of this 'Primordial Soup'? Sounds delish

Don't bother. I hear it's a vegetarian dish.

philologos

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You just love to pick irrelevant points to argue don't you? I was joking. I'm fully confident of the capacity of religious people to doublethink the relevance abiogenesis away. Sure, there'll be a new wave of fundies, reacting like the creationists did to evolution. But tbh, they're just the ones who have figured out that the rest of you are just going to be retreating forever from science. The ones who decided to draw a line. The stand they're making is pointless and hopeless, but then so is the God of the Gaps.

There is nothing to respond to. It doesn't exclude God. For me this would explain the how and not the why.

Mickeroo

Jakkass wrote: »

There is nothing to respond to. It doesn't exclude God. For me this would explain the how and not the why.

At least you don't just say its all lies like NWCs will

AtomicHorror

Jakkass wrote: »

There is nothing to respond to.

You say the same for evolution, yet we have creationists. So I think we can be confident that some people are going to reject science on this front also.

Jakkass wrote: »

It doesn't exclude God.

Logically, nothing excludes God as you guys define it. Unless you can perhaps detail to me the conditions under which you would reject the God pseudohypothesis?

Jakkass wrote: »

For me this would explain the how and not the why.

Showing that life emerges without intervention rather solves the "why" does it not? Why does sugar dissolve in my tea? Because that is in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry. Why does life emerge from organic solutions under conditions x and y. Same reason. If that has anything to do with God then at best all He did was set a pattern in motion at the start of the observable universe, and so He has retreated from you guys once again. Interventionist only in ways that are immeasurable. Like infusing "spirit" into man during evolution, yet to no detectable effect. Like I said, you guys will find a way around it but in a strange way I sort of admire the creationists more for their realisation of the nature of this silly game.

Galvasean

ned78 wrote: »

Aviation & Aircraft, not Atheism & Agnosticism

Can we come to your beers?

robindch wrote: »

In honor of this, shouldn't we rename him the "God of the gap"?

Didn't someone post an article recently that he is now hiding in sub-atomic partickles?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Really surprised this isn't on BBC website.

I thought this would be huge when it happened.

AtomicHorror

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Really surprised this isn't on BBC website.

I thought this would be huge when it happened.

It's a big deal, but it's not quite the origin of life question solved. They managed to synthesise two of the four RNA ribonucleotides (U and C) under plausible conditions which is pretty huge news, but not the end of the story. The publication itself is also a bit brief (a research letter to Nature) and will probably be followed by a more comprehensive work in a few months. My guess is, they caught wind of a competitor closing in on them so they rushed out a short form publication to retain novelty. I'm actually surprised more media outlets haven't jumped the gun and claimed abiogenesis has been proven, so I see the restraint as a positive.

kiffer

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It's a big deal, but it's not quite the origin of life question solved. ... I'm actually surprised more media outlets haven't jumped the gun and claimed abiogenesis has been proven, so I see the restraint as a positive.

They'll pull it out on a slow news day next week...
My bet is it'll be in the Metro soon, they're usually about a day or two behind Fark.

Owen

kiffer wrote: »

They'll pull it out on a slow news day next week...
My bet is it'll be in the Metro soon, they're usually about a day or two behind Fark.

And the back page of the examiner just copies and pastes anecdotal articles from Fark, so we'll probably see it there too.

Dades

"Scientists Create Intelligent Life From Nothing".

"Iona Institute Holds Prayer Vigil Against Morally Corrupt Scientists"

"Just Add Electricity"

marco_polo

Galvasean wrote: »

Can we come to your beers?



Didn't someone post an article recently that he is now hiding in sub-atomic partickles?

Current research indicates that his height is 99.99999999999999999% percent of the Planck length.

Galvasean

kiffer wrote: »

They'll pull it out on a slow news day next week...
My bet is it'll be in the Metro soon, they're usually about a day or two behind Fark.

Just as long as they don't start the article with "boffins have..."

*shudders*

dlofnep

Um, they did this years ago and are still unable to explain the leap from RNA to DNA.

I would like to know how it happened however. It's a very interesting topic.

pts

We might have to update the score to 23,000,023,023,233 - 0.
Scientists Discover Common Ancestor of Monkeys, Apes, and Humans

Genghiz Cohen

pts wrote: »

We might have to update the score to 23,000,023,023,233 - 0.
Scientists Discover Common Ancestor of Monkeys, Apes, and Humans

Snap

Zillah

So Lemur vs Tarsidae is the new Evolution vs Creationism, right?

Mark Hamill

pts wrote: »

We might have to update the score to 23,000,023,023,233 - 0.
Scientists Discover Common Ancestor of Monkeys, Apes, and Humans

I think at this stage we can just say that the score is
Evolution-Reality, Creationism-nil

Galvasean

pts wrote: »

We might have to update the score to 23,000,023,023,233 - 0.
Scientists Discover Common Ancestor of Monkeys, Apes, and Humans

Awesome. I am off to repost taht in the palaeontology forum

Overblood

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how this follows at all. I don't see how such a discovery would weaken the case for God at all.

Well the mystery of life was your proof of a god not too long ago:

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally would love if atheists could answer me these things:

2. How does one explain life coming from non-life?

:pac:

sink

Overblood wrote: »

Well the mystery of life was your proof of a god not too long ago:



:pac:

:DThere has never been a better example of goal posts with legs in the history of this board. Caught red handed with his hand in the cookie jar. I can't wait to hear his excuse, I'm sure it's going to be brilliantly contrived as always.

Overblood

Yup.

AtomicHorror

Overblood wrote: »

Well the mystery of life was your proof of a god not too long ago:

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

In honor of this, shouldn't we rename him the "God of the gap"?

...or just 'God of nothing at all'.

Sam Vimes

sink wrote: »

:DThere has never been a better example of goal posts with legs in the history of this board. Caught red handed with his hand in the cookie jar. I can't wait to hear his excuse, I'm sure it's going to be brilliantly contrived as always.

/grabs popcorn

/waits patiently for a response that will most likely never come

Soul Winner

ned78 wrote: »

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/13/2112215

Scientists have assembled RNA from a pseudo primordial soup - which is pretty much how evolutionists say life originated on earth. Nice.

Wow! So that means that we are nothing more than mere matter which by means of billions of freakish accidental astronomical coincidences has (accidentally and with no purposes at all) been configured into its present pointless complexity in order that we, in our present pointless complex state, can safely say that creationism is wrong. Way to go!