AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

After 60 years of research we are no further along than knowing what does not work. How to go from inorganic chemistry to organic (living) chemistry is as big a puzzle as ever.-Discussion of pre-biotic soup in which available molecules, that are luckily organic, somehow or other fall together:-http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/01/more-prebiotic-soup-nonsense.html-Next is the upstart metabolic pathway, just as problematic, which requires a citric acid cycle and uses co-enzyme A, a giant organic molecule. Did Co-A just happen to be lying around by chance or glorious accident. It is a just-so story of Darwinist biochemists:-Metabolilc pathway:-http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/05/metabolism-first-and-origin-of-life.html-And look at the size of Co-A:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coenzyme_A

4591 views

OK David 
I give up.
I don't know how it was done.
Therefore God did it. QED

4412 views

OK David 
> I give up.
> I don't know how it was done.
> Therefore God did it. QED-Don't give up. There has got to be an explanation you can accept without 'tongue-in-cheek'. Perhaps pan-spermia, which only shifts the same problem to another part of the universe. Perhaps magical clays which can hold together necessary chemicals before they drift away. Perhaps an RNA world, but how did that start. There are lots of 'perhapses', but nothing concrete. What or who did it? The odds are 50/50 of being right, I admit that: chance or purpose. I will logically pick teleology every time. Aristotle and First Cause all the way.

4444 views

Just thought you might enjoy this cartoon series:-http://www.tor.com/stories/2011/01/preview-evolution-the-story-of-life-on-earth-Found it on facebook.

--
GPJ

4412 views

Just thought you might enjoy this cartoon series:
> 
> http://www.tor.com/stories/2011/01/preview-evolution-the-story-of-life-on-earth&#13... 
> Found it on facebook.-George: Wonderful to have you visit. Stay awhile. That cartoon is marvelous in explaining one approach to the major questions about the start of life. It uses the RNA world with lots of supppositions, and has no explanation for the Cambrian Explosion, but, in fact, that is exactly where research is today. Scientific study turns up more 'we don't knows' than were present before we had so much knowledge of evolution. Darwin's thoughts were quite simple, really logical for his day and time and knowledge level. Even neo-Darwinism doesn't fit anymore.

4488 views

Don't give up. There has got to be an explanation you can accept without 'tongue-in-cheek'. Perhaps pan-spermia, which only shifts the same problem to another part of the universe. Perhaps magical clays which can hold together necessary chemicals before they drift away. Perhaps an RNA world, but how did that start. There are lots of 'perhapses', but nothing concrete. What or who did it? The odds are 50/50 of being right, I admit that: chance or purpose. I will logically pick teleology every time. Aristotle and First Cause all the way.-Well of course my reply was firmly tongue in cheek. -I suppose my point is 'science' in a recognizable form has really going on for maybe five or six hundred years. Though I suppose I should also give some credit to philosophers that go back through the millenia. -Eitherway science is not an endpoint where we come to a conclusion god exists or does not exist, or life is too complex to have arisen spontaneously. Science just chips away finding 'descriptions' that allow us to make predictions.-My point is, you appear to have come to some panentheist (or universal intelligence, whatever?) conclusion and say fine this where we can stop looking. You assume there has to be a first cause. Your evidence? -There only has to be a first cause in a Euclidean universe.

4444 views


> My point is, you appear to have come to some panentheist (or universal intelligence, whatever?) conclusion and say fine this where we can stop looking. You assume there has to be a first cause. Your evidence? 
> 
> There only has to be a first cause in a Euclidean universe.-That is the sort of universe we live in. Multiverses, no proof!? So there can be a first cause.-I don't want to stop at the point I have reached. I think there is a UI by logic, but I have no real absolute proof now. Can I find some proof? Currently not now, but I can accept proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and keep studying and thinking. Personally I am content with that position.

4477 views

That is the sort of universe we live in. Multiverses, no proof!? So there can be a first cause.
I make no claim other than the evidence points away from a Euclidean universe.
eg relativistic behaviours of planets etc and quantum phenomena we observe at the very small.-This of course says nothing about first causes or their absence.
 
> I don't want to stop at the point I have reached. I think there is a UI by logic, but I have no real absolute proof now. Can I find some proof? Currently not now, but I can accept proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and keep studying and thinking. Personally I am content with that position.-There of course is no proof in science - only evidence that is coherent with the theory or hypothesis - or not. Then either we discard or modify the said theory. Proof is for law courts, mathematicians with sound axioms and alcohol.-You may well think there is a universal intelligence. But for me your logic seems to be I disagree with the mainstream view, I think things are too complex to arise spontaneously, therefore there must be a UI. Is this an accurate summation of your position David?

4448 views

Romansh,-> You may well think there is a universal intelligence. But for me your logic seems to be I disagree with the mainstream view, I think things are too complex to arise spontaneously, therefore there must be a UI. Is this an accurate summation of your position David?-He actually wrote a book about it. (Which I still need to read.) But over the last 3 years of discussion, here's a brief summary: -Basically he's making a decision right now based on the evidence we have, partially because our society pressures us to make a choice. He infers an intelligence; it's a much more sophisticated watchmaker argument, but it is a good analogy. He however does not posit beyond that inference. He observes that Natural Selection itself doesn't seem to be rapid enough (as did Gould) and believes a UI is the agent of rapid change. He fully acknowledges that none of this is testable and that it is ultimately a position of faith, but, relying on Thomist/Aristotelian logic, believes that reason alone is sufficient to make his claim. He's not a traditional theist, he just takes a philosophical position based on the evidence at hand. -He resists making claims against the UI, but I don't see why not... if reason alone is enough... (dhw and I have used David's UI model to talk a bit about this UI's nature.)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4542 views


> He actually wrote a book about it. (Which I still need to read.) But over the last 3 years of discussion, here's a brief summary: -You need to read it. You left out some things in your analysis of me.
> 
> Basically he's making a decision right now based on the evidence we have, partially because our society pressures us to make a choice. He infers an intelligence; it's a much more sophisticated watchmaker argument, but it is a good analogy. He however does not posit beyond that inference. He observes that Natural Selection itself doesn't seem to be rapid enough (as did Gould) and believes a UI is the agent of rapid change. He fully acknowledges that none of this is testable and that it is ultimately a position of faith, but, relying on Thomist/Aristotelian logic, believes that reason alone is sufficient to make his claim. He's not a traditional theist, he just takes a philosophical position based on the evidence at hand. -Gould was on to something. Punctuated equilibrium is a better fit for the fossil record than gradual Darwinism. Increasingly complex epigenetic discoveries will allow me to straighten my inference that DNA is coded for increasing complexity and the advancement to the human species. I am a theistic evolutionist. It is in the book.-This is all right on. Since you know me so well, if I lie on your couch, can I bounce some psychological thoughts off you? 
> 
> He resists making claims against the UI, but I don't see why not... if reason alone is enough... (dhw and I have used David's UI model to talk a bit about this UI's nature.)-This is not true. There is a whole area in the book on theodicy. I present God as a 'tough-love God for good reason. If He were ever-loving,caring and protective, we would never learn to face challenges and develop properly. After all, we have a piece of His brain to work with. We can open up the subject of the problem of evil on this site, and dig deeper, if you wish.

4416 views

I present God as a 'tough-love God for good reason. If He were ever-loving,caring and protective, we would never learn to face challenges and develop properly. After all, we have a piece of His brain to work with. We can open up the subject of the problem of evil on this site, and dig deeper, if you wish.-Interesting, a panentheistic god with somewhat personal attributes? -I wish I could read the tea leaves this well.
again tongue in cheek

4491 views

I wish I could read the tea leaves this well.
> again tongue in cheek-Do you know any leaves that tell us how to start life from inorganic chemistry?

4424 views

I wish I could read the tea leaves this well.
> > again tongue in cheek
> 
> Do you know any leaves that tell us how to start life from inorganic chemistry?-I'm not claiming I know or even have a good guess.-Nevertheless, I would be very hesitant on ascribing properties to god based on what I don't know, but each to his own I suppose.

4471 views


> > He actually wrote a book about it. (Which I still need to read.) But over the last 3 years of discussion, here's a brief summary: 
> 
> You need to read it. You left out some things in your analysis of me.
> > 
> > Basically he's making a decision right now based on the evidence we have, partially because our society pressures us to make a choice. He infers an intelligence; it's a much more sophisticated watchmaker argument, but it is a good analogy. He however does not posit beyond that inference. He observes that Natural Selection itself doesn't seem to be rapid enough (as did Gould) and believes a UI is the agent of rapid change. He fully acknowledges that none of this is testable and that it is ultimately a position of faith, but, relying on Thomist/Aristotelian logic, believes that reason alone is sufficient to make his claim. He's not a traditional theist, he just takes a philosophical position based on the evidence at hand. 
> 
> Gould was on to something. Punctuated equilibrium is a better fit for the fossil record than gradual Darwinism. Increasingly complex epigenetic discoveries will allow me to straighten my inference that DNA is coded for increasing complexity and the advancement to the human species. I am a theistic evolutionist. It is in the book.
> 
> This is all right on. Since you know me so well, if I lie on your couch, can I bounce some psychological thoughts off you? -I hope... I didn't put my foot in my mouth and you really meant that; but it was a quick observation of our talks to date, though I fully admit that it was dangerous to interject... I'm sorry if I did offend. I consider you a friend. -I've often wished that we all weren't so geographically dispersed... it would be nice to have these chats over a brew and a fire pit. -> > 
> > He resists making claims against the UI, but I don't see why not... if reason alone is enough... (dhw and I have used David's UI model to talk a bit about this UI's nature.)
> 
> This is not true. There is a whole area in the book on theodicy. I present God as a 'tough-love God for good reason. If He were ever-loving,caring and protective, we would never learn to face challenges and develop properly. After all, we have a piece of His brain to work with. We can open up the subject of the problem of evil on this site, and dig deeper, if you wish.-This--I would love. I just saw a National Geographic documentary on Evil, and it sparked a series of inspirations in my head. Free Will of course, having a central role. I've never caught myself into reading so many books at the same time (only 2 are for school... many are for research for my novel.) but I will gladly jump to that part of your book to get a brush on your ideas. -My observation about not making claims against the UI--it's because I remember on a few different occasions you politely criticizing some of the attempts of dhw and myself.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4487 views

I hope... I didn't put my foot in my mouth and you really meant that; but it was a quick observation of our talks to date, though I fully admit that it was dangerous to interject... I'm sorry if I did offend. I consider you a friend.-We are certainly good friends. There is no foot in a mouth. I rather enjoyed your analysis of me. There are just things that haven't come up in our discussions, which are limited. 
> 
> I've often wished that we all weren't so geographically dispersed... it would be nice to have these chats over a brew and a fire pit. -I have the same wish and a fire pit is out in back. Unlimitless brews or wine is an easily met requirement. ) 
> > 
> > This is not true. There is a whole area in the book on theodicy. I present God as a 'tough-love God for good reason. If He were ever-loving,caring and protective, we would never learn to face challenges and develop properly. After all, we have a piece of His brain to work with. We can open up the subject of the problem of evil on this site, and dig deeper, if you wish.-Accept a diety and evil must be faced as a problem to answer. Lots of folks envoke human 'free will', but nature's evils must be accounted for also. Certainly the dog-eat-dog nature of evolution is easily explained, no natural selection without it. Earthquakes and volcanoes are required to make our life-hospitable Earth. This is a perfectly clear area of unavoidable evil, an area that bugs dhw.
> 
> This--I would love. I just saw a National Geographic documentary on Evil, and it sparked a series of inspirations in my head. Free Will of course, having a central role. I've never caught myself into reading so many books at the same time (only 2 are for school... many are for research for my novel.) but I will gladly jump to that part of your book to get a brush on your ideas. 
> 
> My observation about not making claims against the UI--it's because I remember on a few different occasions you politely criticizing some of the attempts of dhw and myself. -There are areas of discussion of God or UI we have had where there were personal guesses, not trying to explain theodicy, but what I thought were wild suppositions. I look to thinking about the UI in relation to specific problem areas, and how a UI might logically come at peace with those issues.

4493 views

Clay has been proposed before as a template upon which some inorganic molecules might gather and somehow start life. Now we have clay bubbles that have some semi-permeable properties and, who knows, might have been some help early on. Reaching for straws of hope:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110207073744.htm

4438 views

There seems to be much speculation about David's book.-DAVID: You need to read it-I can only echo this very loudly. I have read it, and although of course there are points of disagreement, I consider it an immensely important contribution to the whole debate ... far more cogently and coherently argued than The God Delusion. It was actually written two years earlier, and ideally perhaps David should update it, also to include more recent scientific findings, but for anyone who is seriously interested in the case not only for design but also for aspects of existence beyond our current comprehension, it is a must. -David, I hope this enthusiastic recommendation won't embarrass you, but it comes from the heart as well as the brain!

4442 views

There seems to be much speculation about David's book.
> 
> DAVID: You need to read it
> 
> I can only echo this very loudly. I have read it, and although of course there are points of disagreement, I consider it an immensely important contribution to the whole debate ... far more cogently and coherently argued than The God Delusion. It was actually written two years earlier, and ideally perhaps David should update it, also to include more recent scientific findings, but for anyone who is seriously interested in the case not only for design but also for aspects of existence beyond our current comprehension, it is a must. 
> 
> David, I hope this enthusiastic recommendation won't embarrass you, but it comes from the heart as well as the brain!-Thank you, thank you. I'm considering revisions at the time

4558 views

You may well think there is a universal intelligence. But for me your logic seems to be I disagree with the mainstream view, I think things are too complex to arise spontaneously, therefore there must be a UI. Is this an accurate summation of your position David?-Accurate

4357 views

Romansh,
> There only has to be a first cause in a Euclidean universe.-Exactly. And we know without doubt that we DO NOT live in an Euclidean universe.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4476 views

Romansh,
> > There only has to be a first cause in a Euclidean universe.
> 
> Exactly. And we know without doubt that we DO NOT live in an Euclidean universe.--As a non-mathematician, please explain to me. thanks

4453 views

There has been a new look at the old Miller-Urey 1953-58 experiments with a supposed ancient atmosphere and amino acids. More amino acids have been found but I don't see a claim for more than the eight essential amino acids found in arriving metoerites so far in that kind of research. Remember we humans need 20 essential amino acids in our proteins. Now that it appears that life started only two byo this research becomes of even more interest.-http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/58083/

4318 views

There has been a new look at the old Miller-Urey 1953-58 experiments with a supposed ancient atmosphere and amino acids. More amino acids have been found but I don't see a claim for more than the eight essential amino acids found in arriving metoerites so far in that kind of research. Remember we humans need 20 essential amino acids in our proteins. Now that it appears that life started only two byo this research becomes of even more interest.
> 
> http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/58083/-2Bnya? Did they date fossils wrong that had archaea?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4260 views

Now that it appears that life started only two byo this research becomes of even more interest.
> > 
> > http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/58083/
> 
> 2Bnya? Did they date fossils wrong that had archaea?-See my entry of 3/17/11 13:50 under origin of life.

4368 views

After 60 years of research we are no further along than knowing what does not work. How to go from inorganic chemistry to organic (living) chemistry is as big a puzzle as ever.
> 
> Discussion of pre-biotic soup in which available molecules, that are luckily organic, somehow or other fall together:
> 
> http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/01/more-prebiotic-soup-nonsense.html&#10... 
> Next is the upstart metabolic pathway, just as problematic, which requires a citric acid cycle and uses co-enzyme A, a giant organic molecule. Did Co-A just happen to be lying around by chance or glorious accident. It is a just-so story of Darwinist biochemists:
> 
> Metabolilc pathway:
> 
> http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/05/metabolism-first-and-origin-of-life.html&... 
> And look at the size of Co-A:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coenzyme_A-Sandwalk. Have we a new Shapiro?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4530 views


> Sandwalk. Have we a new Shapiro?-Thank goodness for skeptics!

4435 views

After 60 years of research we are no further along than knowing what does not work. How to go from inorganic chemistry to organic (living) chemistry is as big a puzzle as ever.-
Dennis Overbye, the veteran science writer for the NY Times describes a recent confab on o-o-l, which rehashed all the old stuff, presented nothing new, and apparently ignored the inorganic energy cycle theories. What most impressed him was the RNA-world theories, which of itself sounds very reasonable, until you study it a bit and discover just how miraculously complicated would be the origin. Did the parts just fall together, or did the enzymes, the atoms, the heat, etc. just join up?-http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/science/22origins.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

4495 views

Research into Australian meteorites has found ammonia in a type that also have glycine and alanine. the amonia is not the isotype of nitrogen found on Earth, but the fndiing raises the possibility that many of the necessary chemicals for origin of life processes came by meteorites. It should be remembered that only 8 of the 20 essential amino acids for life have been found so far in meteorites.-http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-meteorites-ammonia-life-earth.html

4388 views

DAVID: After 60 years of research we are no further along than knowing what does not work. How to go from inorganic chemistry to organic (living) chemistry is as big a puzzle as ever.-Dennis Overbye, the veteran science writer for the NY Times describes a recent confab on o-o-l, which rehashed all the old stuff, presented nothing new, and apparently ignored the inorganic energy cycle theories. What most impressed him was the RNA-world theories, which of itself sounds very reasonable, until you study it a bit and discover just how miraculously complicated would be the origin. Did the parts just fall together, or did the enzymes, the atoms, the heat, etc. just join up?-http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/science/22origins.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1-I noted down some revealing quotes as I read this "romp" into the various theories, but couldn't read the last third or so, as I kept getting messages about the dangers of installing new software. I wonder if your UI got such warnings when he started work.-[...] "life is a very simple process," said Sidney Altman [...] "It uses energy, it sustains itself and it replicates."-One has to admire these scientists. If you can't solve a mystery, then just pretend there isn't one. Similarly, Dr John Sutherland has cracked all the codes:-With the right mixture and conditions, complicated-looking molecules can assemble themselves without help. When everything is in the pot [...] the chemistry to make RNA is easier.-But I was greatly taken with Steve Benner's reaction: nobody knows whether Dr Sutherland's recipe would work on the early Earth. Moreover, even if RNA did appear naturally, the odds that it would happen in the right sequence to drive Darwinian evolution seem small.-At last someone who acknowledges that life on Earth is NOT simply a matter of energy, sustenance and replication, but that Darwinian evolution demands a great deal more: the ability to innovate, adapt, develop. The great quest for life elsewhere in the universe is for ANY type of life. (Apparently it's now a pet theory that life did start elsewhere ... maybe on Mars, though see David's latest post about meteorites.) But if it couldn't/didn't evolve, it wouldn't be OUR type of life. In any case, if our type of life started somewhere else, we are still faced with the same mysteries. How did the mechanisms put themselves together in the first place?

4376 views

In any case, if our type of life started somewhere else, we are still faced with the same mysteries. How did the mechanisms put themselves together in the first place?-A NASA studying a carbonaceous meteorite claims to have found life from elsewhere!:-http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/05/exclusive-nasa-scientists-claims-evidence-alien-life-meteorite/#ixzz1FlAqtoBl-Comments from Robert B. Sheldon-http://www.rbsp.info/rbs/RbS/cv.html -First, these pictures are of fossils, like petrified wood. They have virtually no nitrogen in them. Living organisms are more than 15% nitrogen.Samples of dinosaur bone and mammoth hair show that it takes more than a million years to eliminate all the nitrogen.-Second, the isotopes in these fossils don't match earth isotopes, they are clearly meteoritic ratios.-Third, the meteorites are largely held together by hygroscopic minerals like magnesium sulfate.
The fossils are made of mostly things like magnesium sulfate, held in a keratogenic carbon sheath. If they were exposed to rain water and weathering, they would dissolve. That's why we only have nine of them in the past 100 years, we had to grab them while they were hot and store them in a jar before they dissolved.-Fourth, many of them have fusion crusts, caused by passage through the atmosphere which would sterilize the outside of them from invasive bacteria, yet they still have these fossils.-Fifth, in large samples of the meteorite that have undergone chemical extraction, we find something like 10 or 15 amino acids. (The parts per billion sensitivity of chemical mass spectrometers is much greater than the scanning electron microscope atomic sensitivity to nitrogen at about 0.1%.) The ones that are missing are the least stable ones, with half-lives in the thousands of years. Invasive life would have all 26 amino acids present.
And there are no "bizarre" amino acids that would be produced abiotically. They all show some L-amino optical activity, which also indicates life.-Sixth, some of the fossils are of microorganisms that went extinct on earth some 400 million years ago. Seventh, some of the fossils are clearly biological, but have never been observed on earth, including one that has the atomic composition of teflon.
It looks both homey and alien at the same time. That's why I believe there is a much larger biosphere than Earth, and it is all on comets, the mother object of these strange meteorites.

4462 views

David has drawn our attention to what may or may not be an exciting discovery ... a meteorite with fossils of life from elsewhere.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/05/exclusive-nasa-scientists-claims-evidence-ali...-Comments from Robert B. Sheldon-http://www.rbsp.info/rbs/RbS/cv.html -Unfortunately, the Robert B. Sheldon reference was just a CV ... or did I miss something? -It'll be fascinating to see if eventually there is consensus on this among all the scientists, but we've heard of similar sensations before, so perhaps we shouldn't get TOO excited. If it turns out to be true, what are the implications? The suggestion that life on Earth was seeded from somewhere in space doesn't solve the problem of origin, but one can already hear the arguments:-1) Theists will say there's no reason why God shouldn't have created life all over the universe, and it's still too complex to have assembled itself. However, those theists who have hitherto claimed that life on Earth is unique, and God has a special purpose for us humans, will certainly have to rethink, unless they claim that all life throughout what you call "a much larger biosphere" was geared to us. Quite literally more and more far fetched?-2) Atheists, meanwhile, will claim that the discovery vindicates their belief that with, say, 50-100 billion galaxies in the universe, "the spontaneous arising of something equivalent to DNA" (Dawkins) is inevitable, not just on one planet but on millions.-Of course neither side can prove anything, but purely for the sake of satisfying our unending curiosity, this will be a major piece of the vast jigsaw puzzle ... if it's true. Many thanks to David for spotting it and sharing it.

4467 views

David has drawn our attention to what may or may not be an exciting discovery ... a meteorite with fossils of life from elsewhere.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/05/exclusive-nasa-scientists-claims-evidence-ali... 
> Comments from Robert B. Sheldon
> 
> http://www.rbsp.info/rbs/RbS/cv.html 
> 
> Unfortunately, the Robert B. Sheldon reference was just a CV ... or did I miss something? -No you didn't. Sheldon made some on-the-mark requirements, and I just wanted to show his background and ability to be critical. He thinks the article is probably correct in its conclusions.
> The suggestion that life on Earth was seeded from somewhere in space doesn't solve the problem of origin, but one can already hear the arguments:-
> 
> 1) Theists will say there's no reason why God shouldn't have created life all over the universe, and it's still too complex to have assembled itself. However, those theists who have hitherto claimed that life on Earth is unique, and God has a special purpose for us humans, will certainly have to rethink, unless they claim that all life throughout what you call "a much larger biosphere" was geared to us. Quite literally more and more far fetched?-Seeding the universe with life, early-on, still requires an Earth with all of its exact requirements for allowing early life to evolve to what we see today. The theists just have to shift emphasis a bit. The Earth is still special, as arranged by God in Genesis.
> 
> 2) Atheists, meanwhile, will claim that the discovery vindicates their belief that with, say, 50-100 billion galaxies in the universe, "the spontaneous arising of something equivalent to DNA" (Dawkins) is inevitable, not just on one planet but on millions.-Note this is exactly opposite of my theistic answer above. We still only know of one special planet.
> 
> Of course neither side can prove anything.....-From the NY Times:-http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/nasa-scientist-sees-signs-of-life-in-meteorites/?scp=1-b&sq=alien+life+meteorites&st=nyt-
And from atheist PZ Myers, biology professor:-http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/did_scientists_discover_bacter.php-His ranting criticism shows this is more of a threat to atheists. His blog is pharyngula.

4446 views

David has drawn our attention to what may or may not be an exciting discovery ... a meteorite with fossils of life from elsewhere.
> > 
> > http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/05/exclusive-nasa-scientists-claims-evidence-ali... comes a chorus of doubt about this paper:-
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-scientists-skeptical-meteorite-alien-life.html

4427 views

Another meteorite story finding abundant ammonia, explaining how our atmosphere might have picked up enough nitrogen to form life. Nitrogen is one of the vital elements to make amino acids, one of the main foundations of life's protein.-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110302091646.htm

4338 views

David has drawn our attention to what may or may not be an exciting discovery ... a meteorite with fossils of life from elsewhere.
> > > 
> > > http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/05/exclusive-nasa-scientists-claims-evidence-ali... 
> 
> Now comes a chorus of doubt about this paper:
> 
> 
> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-scientists-skeptical-meteorite-alien-life.html-http...

4395 views

John Horgan in Sci Am notes how futile the search for origin-of-life chemistry has been. Read the comments afterward, from interesting points of view:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28

4279 views

The chimp Y chromosome has turned out to be widely different than the human Y, and it is suggested that the split occurred early and speedily.-
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100113/full/463149a.html

4359 views

New studies by the Raman specrometer show that 3.5 byo 'bacterial fossils' are nothing but minieral deposits in the rocks from Australia. The Greenland rocks' 'fossil bacteria' are also under dispute. Life may be only 2 byo on Earth.-http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-overturns-oldest-evidence-life-earth.html

4287 views

Now there is "dark matter" in biology!-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20265-biologys-dark-matter-hints-at-fourth-domain-of-life.html-Picked this up from New Scientist post on Twitter.
Anyone else here on twitter?

--
GPJ

4421 views

Now there is "dark matter" in biology!
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20265-biologys-dark-matter-hints-at-fourth-domain... 
> Picked this up from New Scientist post on Twitter.-No, I follow their website almost daily, but the last two days have been wildly active and I haven't had the time. Thanks for posting it. Great story, and who knows how many branches of life there are?-
> Anyone else here on twitter?-I'm not. I do have a facebook account but don't use it, no time, frankly.

4338 views

From the last couple of posts I have seen catching up on this thread:-Once again the scientific community is shocked by how different our genes/chromosomes are from monkeys....-Life is much younger than we thought...-Err.. duh. -Sorry, this does not come as a shock, or a surprise. It comes as more proof that pet theories are just pet theories and are still held in high esteem despite evidence to the contrary. In order to defend those theories, even more wildly unbelievable(and even less supportable)theories are being used to shore up the crumbling framework. -(Not a real quote, just an abstract message from all the articles)
"Well, life didn't have as long to evolve, so natural selection didn't have as long to work, and genetic diversity is greater than we thought... I know!! If we claim that life evolved elsewhere we can get that 1 Billion Years back and it all works again!!"

4330 views

The great quest for life elsewhere in the universe is for ANY type of life. (Apparently it's now a pet theory that life did start elsewhere ... maybe on Mars, though see David's latest post about meteorites.) But if it couldn't/didn't evolve, it wouldn't be OUR type of life. In any case, if our type of life started somewhere else, we are still faced with the same mysteries. How did the mechanisms put themselves together in the first place?-Another pie-in-the-sky RNA world self-replicating and copying RNA, made by intelligence in a lab. The first since R18, many years ago, and based on it, imploying many thousands of variations on R18. Oh, well:-http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/04/rna-enzyme-makes-another-rna-e.html-Even if this research continues, it proves nothing, except humans can invent realities. We can never know if this is the way it happened.

4264 views

Questions about Origin of Life includes the issue of why are there 20 essential amino acids, that is acids that make all proteins, and must be eaten to be available. (Actually, in some organisms there are 22, but this is a rare requirement.) Why aren't other amino acids used? Now comes a paper that seriously questions whether these 20 were chosen by chance. The paper appears to state that these 20 are the most desirable for life, and could not happen just from chance evolution:-
Astrobiology. 2011 Mar 24. [Epub ahead of print]-Did Evolution Select a Nonrandom "Alphabet" of Amino Acids?
Philip GK, Freeland SJ.-NASA Astrobiology Institute, University of Hawaii , Honolulu, Hawaii.-Abstract
Abstract The last universal common ancestor of contemporary biology (LUCA) used a precise set of 20 amino acids as a standard alphabet with which to build genetically encoded protein polymers. Considerable evidence indicates that some of these amino acids were present through nonbiological syntheses prior to the origin of life, while the rest evolved as inventions of early metabolism. However, the same evidence indicates that many alternatives were also available, which highlights the question: what factors led biological evolution on our planet to define its standard alphabet? One possibility is that natural selection favored a set of amino acids that exhibits clear, nonrandom properties-a set of especially useful building blocks. However, previous analysis that tested whether the standard alphabet comprises amino acids with unusually high variance in size, charge, and hydrophobicity (properties that govern what protein structures and functions can be constructed) failed to clearly distinguish evolution's choice from a sample of randomly chosen alternatives. Here, we demonstrate unambiguous support for a refined hypothesis: that an optimal set of amino acids would spread evenly across a broad range of values for each fundamental property. Specifically, we show that the standard set of 20 amino acids represents the possible spectra of size, charge, and hydrophobicity more broadly and more evenly than can be explained by chance alone. Key Words: Astrobiology-Evolution-Molecular biology-Modeling studies. Astrobiology 11, xxx-xxx.-PMID: 21434765 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]-(My bolding)

4325 views

In the beginning there had to be enzymes. Organic chemistry reactions require them. This paper, with computer assumptions as a computer model, claims they were complex. If this is so, and a big IF, life was complex from the beginning. That just can't be possible without a directing intelligence, as in my previous entry, stating that the 20 existiing essential amino acids did not occur by chance. Evidence for a UI keeps piling up:-http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-resurrect-ancient-enzymes-reveal-conditions.html

4268 views

There appears to have been evolutionary life on land before the Cambrian Explosion, long before fish with legs made landfall.:-http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/58114/

4285 views

This is an interview with Rabbi M. Averick, whose book uses the origin of life in his book to refute atheism. He makes perfect sense to me:-http://webtalkradio.net/shows/transformation-radio/

4366 views

There appears to have been evolutionary life on land before the Cambrian Explosion, long before fish with legs made landfall.:
> 
> http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/58114/-Here is another take on the ealy fossils on land, with perhaps a more complete explanation of the findings:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110413132951.htm

4299 views

Here is a study of a meteorite with organic compounds. They wonder how the amino acids formed on it or in it. The comment that the organic compounds do not follow the organic patterns in life seems to negate the idea that somehow or other meteorites started life on Earth:-http://the-scientist.com/2011/06/09/meteorite-hints-at-life%e2%80%99s-origins/

4235 views

DAVID: Here is a study of a meteorite with organic compounds. They wonder how the amino acids formed on it or in it. The comment that the organic compounds do not follow the organic patterns in life seems to negate the idea that somehow or other meteorites started life on Earth:-http://the-scientist.com/2011/06/09/meteorite-hints-at-life%e2%80%99s-origins/-The headline screams: "Meteorite hints at life's origins", and the article is full of excitement at the possibility that it may provide clues. It points out that: "Many scientists believe those meteor showers provided the quantities of carboxylic acids, amino acids, and amines necessary to create life in the primordial soup of Earth's ancient seas." -Then we read:
An alternative interpretation of the data is that the compounds formed when a life form from outer space was degraded, said Chandra Wickramasinghe, an astrobiologist at the Cardiff Center for Astrobiology, who was not involved in the study.-But both Herd and Sephton disagreed with that interpretation. The meteorite doesn't have the patterns that you see in biological material, even degraded life forms, Sephton said.-I get the impression from the article that scientists are looking for an instant mixture which will only require water to spring to life. They obviously haven't found it. We know that all the ingredients must have come together somehow, but I'd be grateful if someone would tell me exactly why this particular piece of research is so exciting.

4258 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum