Chemists show life on Earth was not a fluke

Oct 24, 2013 by Andrew Bissette, The Conversation
In them, began life. Credit: University of Utah

How life came about from inanimate sets of chemicals is still a mystery. While we may never be certain which chemicals existed on prebiotic Earth, we can study the biomolecules we have today to give us clues about what happened three billion years ago.

Now scientists have used a set of these biomolecules to show one way in which might have started. They found that these molecular machines, which exist in living cells today, don't do much on their own. But as soon as they add fatty chemicals, which form a primitive version of a cell membrane, it got the chemicals close enough to react in a highly specific manner.

This form of self-organisation is remarkable, and figuring out how it happens may hold the key to understanding life on earth formed and perhaps how it might form on other planets.

The 1987 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was given to chemists for showing how complex can perform very precise functions. One of the behaviours of these molecules is called self-organisation, where different chemicals come together because of the many forces acting on them and become a molecular machine capable of even more complex tasks. Each living cell is full of these .

Pasquale Stano at the University of Roma Tre and his colleagues were interested in using this knowledge to probe the origins of life. To make things simple, they chose an assembly that produces proteins. This assembly consists of 83 different molecules including DNA, which was programmed to produce a special green fluorescent protein (GFP) that could be observed under a confocal microscope.

The assembly can only produce proteins when its molecules are close enough together to react with each other. When the assembly is diluted with water, they can no longer react. This is one reason that the insides of living cells are very crowded, concentrated places: to allow the chemistry of life to work.

In order to recreate this molecular crowding, Stano added a called POPC to the dilute solution. Fatty molecules such as POPC do not mix with water, and when placed into water they automatically form liposomes. These have a very similar structure to the membranes of and are widely used to study the evolution of cells.

Stano reports in the journal Angewandte Chemie that many of these liposomes trapped some molecules of the assembly. But remarkably, five in every 1,000 such liposomes had all 83 of the molecules needed to produce a protein. These liposomes produced large amount of GFP and glowed green under a microscope.

Computer calculations reveal that even by chance, five liposomes in 1,000 could not have trapped all 83 molecules of the assembly. Their calculated probability for even one such liposome to form is essentially zero. The fact that any such formed and that GFP was produced means something quite unique is happening.

Stano and his colleagues do not yet understand why this happened. It may yet be a random process that a better statistical model will explain. It may be that these particular molecules are suited to this kind of self-organisation because they are already highly evolved. An important next step is to see if similar, but less complex, molecules are also capable of this feat.

Regardless of the limitations, Stano's experiment has shown for the first time that self-assembly into simple cells may be an inevitable physical process. Finding out how exactly this self-assembly happens will mean taking a big step towards understanding how life was formed.

Explore further: New model gives better control of self-assembly processes

More information: dx.doi.org/10.1002/anie.201306613

Related Stories

Molecules assemble in water, hint at origins of life

Feb 20, 2013

(Phys.org)—The base pairs that hold together two pieces of RNA, the older cousin of DNA, are some of the most important molecular interactions in living cells. Many scientists believe that these base pairs ...

Second life for an assembly factor

Oct 21, 2013

(Phys.org) —LMU researchers have identified a novel protein that is required for the assembly of photosynthetic reaction centers. Moreover, their findings suggest that it evolved from a pre-existing factor ...

Did autocells lead to life?

Sep 25, 2013

The origin of life on Earth is still a hotly-debated topic. There are many different theories on how life was kick-started, as well as various experiments underway attempting to understand the processes involved. ...

Nanosciences: All systems go at the biofactory

Sep 28, 2012

In order to assemble novel biomolecular machines, individual protein molecules must be installed at their site of operation with nanometer precision. Ludwig Maximilian University researchers have now found ...

Recommended for you

Free pores for molecule transport

15 hours ago

Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) can take up gases similar to a sponge that soaks up liquids. Hence, these highly porous materials are suited for storing hydrogen or greenhouse gases. However, loading of many ...

User comments : 76

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

verkle
1.2 / 5 (44) Oct 24, 2013
NEWS: Atheist scientists continue to try to figure out how life could come about with time and randomness, and find that it is impossible! Still a mystery!

Get over it guys. Life is not because of chance. It is much too wonderful.
NikFromNYC
1 / 5 (30) Oct 24, 2013
Theory says the precursors to life should not come together like they indeed do! This may be direct support for Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance hypothesis that the whole Universe develops habits.

Dynamic visual simulation of (+/-) zwitterionic POPC molecule in a bilayer membrane, along with stiffening agent cholesterol:
http://www.youtub...ll79EPv0

Banned TED conference of Sheldrake's maverick claim:
http://www.youtub...UaNAxsTg
shavera
4.6 / 5 (20) Oct 24, 2013
Reread the above article guys. The idea is that there's a chemical process not included in the above model that is favoring "lifelike" liposomes more than expected. Meaning that the "rarity/impossibility" of life is more about what we don't understand chemically than some magic finger of god making it happen.
MandoZink
4.3 / 5 (23) Oct 24, 2013
Ahhh, yes! Once again we see the "argument from incredulity" attempting to inject "god of the gaps" showing up here in a comment.

Too wonderful? Too fantastic? Just too amazing?

What is truly wonderful is that with persistence and imagination we eventually figure these things out.

What is "still a mystery" is why the omniscient religious texts had no concept of things like bacterial infections, claiming things like evil spirits instead.

What is not a mystery is how in an era with no understanding of mental illness there was an abundance of visionary prophets.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I read a very interesting series of posts almost a year ago called:
"Science vs. Religion and Magic (Abiogenesis for Ceeboo)"
which includes discussion of lipids/liposomes on a Mormon Discussions website:
http://www.mormon...p=663612

Enjoyable and interesting read.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (19) Oct 24, 2013
"Stano and his colleagues do not yet understand why this happened."

How uplifting. With this one honest declaration, science proclaims the inevitable death of religion.

Science admits that it does not yet know everything. Religion declares that it does, and is then left trying to explain away prior such declarations about a flood that never happened, first people who never existed, an exodus which never took place, a great solomonic/davidic kingdom which never was there, a lovegod which is a carbon copy of many previous godmen, a nazareth which was not yet founded when said lovegod was supposed to have lived there... and so much more.

Scientists may never be able to prove that some deistic god exists somewhere in place or time, and they freely admit this. But they have very definitely demonstrated that the gods of the books are concoctions. Make believe. Lies.

Religious lies cannot last in a world where access to real facts is instantaneous. And so they will wither, and die.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2013
Not unexpected, seeing how nucleotides have evolved to stabilize, and be stabilized by, lipid membranes. [ "Nucleobases binds to and stabilize aggregates of a prebiotic amphiphile...", Black et al, PNAS 2013]

But good to know.

Nitpicks:

- 4 billion years ago.

- The ability to work in crowded place is a result of evolution, not a prerequisite.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.5 / 5 (16) Oct 24, 2013
Oy! Creationist and pseudoscience trolling alert.

Because every time science makes progress they have to try to pretend it doesn't. Good luck with that scam.

The irony here is that we now know, since 2012, how life came about. Lane & Martin showed conclusively how it clades within geochemistry (not unexpectedly) by way of metabolism, and more precisely within alkaline hydrothermal vent evolution. [I've given the ref so many times: google it.]

A major win for evolution, we have now an unbroken phylogeny from primordial nucleosynthesis all the way to today's species.

Meanwhile trolls assert that what was known to be possible since the 19th century and now shown to be possible since last year is "impossible". "Flat earthers" have become "no lifers". =D

***
Re "randomness": if I had a nickel... The universe and its contents are truly random, generated by fluctuations under inflation. Later evolution is contingent, but selection is decidedly deterministic: "differential reproduction".
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.7 / 5 (14) Oct 24, 2013
I forgot re "atheist": if I had a nickel... The reason science like biology is atheist is that nature is atheist. Simple as that.

Science didn't start out atheist, it is secular like all tools. You can't complain that there are no magic anymore here than elsewhere.

It is actually the fault of magic believers. They took upon themselves to invent the insanity in the first place, complain before them.
SuchNessNone
1.2 / 5 (24) Oct 24, 2013
@The Ghost of Otto: So glad that you have it all figured out, like, I suppose, John Horgan in "The End of Science"? And how's that Theory of Everything going for you? ..Einstein's framework of what would occur on entering a black hole was successfully challenged a few months ago-... Just so you know. So just keep on positing more multiverses, or perhaps collapsed dimensions of string theory (is it 11 {or just fill in the blank} dimensions just now?) And I for one have no need for Hawking, because a good engineer can just retrofit the theory to fit math that works. And I do have need for God, simply because I'll personally never define "God" as this or that "thing". Viz., how would you define or characterize your life to this point in a word or less? ..?...?
Lurker2358
1.1 / 5 (27) Oct 24, 2013
What is "still a mystery" is why the omniscient religious texts had no concept of things like bacterial infections, claiming things like evil spirits instead.


That's actually not true. While they didn't know what bacteria was, it's clear from the Book of Leviticus and quarantine laws that they knew that something microscopic caused diseases. Most of these diseases were grouped together as "Leprosy", and before you say it, they coined the term(in their own language) so no, it is not appropriate for you to criticize them for the fact that the term has since been re-defined.

At any rate, you are quite wrong and mis-informed.

There are only 2 cases of "demon possession" in the Old Testament, and a few in the New Testament, and to my knowledge, none of them except one is directly associated with physical disease. They are almost always associated with insanity and other mental diseases.

Vyhea
4.7 / 5 (15) Oct 25, 2013
That's actually not true. While they didn't know what bacteria was, it's clear from the Book of Leviticus and quarantine laws that they knew that something microscopic caused diseases.

Well they certainly knew what an affliction was. They named them, gave those afflicted names and then shunned them.

I doubt if I could find even an obscure reference to their microscopes, or any drawings of microbial life rendered on papyrus, or incubation studies on photographs of ancient scrolls, but then I would need a microscope to find them.

The broad-reaching laws of avoidance were certainly a shotgun method of prevention.
- Hey! We should just quit eating a particular bunch of stuff and stay away from those filthy damn lepers. -

They should have just stopped going outside. Blind avoidance does not equal even a remotely-competent understand. Their comprehension of diseases was of truly "microscopic" biblical proportions.

There's very little actual science in ancient shepherd's manuals.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2013
"Banned TED conference of Sheldrake's maverick claim:
http://www.youtub...aNAxsTg" - NikkieTard

Pile of bunk. And again strong evidence of NikkieTard's lack of scientific education.
Eikka
2.9 / 5 (22) Oct 25, 2013
While they didn't know what bacteria was, it's clear from the Book of Leviticus and quarantine laws that they knew that something microscopic caused diseases.


Non-sequitur.

Separating the diseased is just as much common sense as not shitting where you eat. It's a discovery made empirically because people who reside with people who are ill tend to get ill.

It has nothing to do with whether these people suspected any sort of microbial cause, and indeed later when it was understood that diseases were not demons and magic and curses, the first theories puth forth were that they were caused by bad smells and foul air, and imbalance of "humours" etc. etc.

Eikka
2.2 / 5 (19) Oct 25, 2013
If you actually read what the bible says about disease, you get passages like this:

Then Uzziah was angry. Now he had a censer in his hand to burn incense, and when he became angry with the priests, leprosy broke out on his forehead in the presence of the priests in the house of the Lord, by the altar of incense. And Azariah the chief priest and all the priests looked at him, and behold, he was leprous in his forehead! And they rushed him out quickly, and he himself hurried to go out, because the Lord had struck him.


2 Chronicles 26:17-20

Saying, "If you will diligently listen to the voice of the Lord your God, and do that which is right in his eyes, and give ear to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, your healer."


Exodus 15:26

So disease was caused, in part, by God.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2013
disease was caused, in part, by God
-Indeed and let us not forget the many times he used plague as a weapon.

Here are few excerpts from a site with a pic of a guy in a lab coat with a stethoscope (dr walt):

"Faith-Based Health and Healing – Part 5 – What Causes Sickness?
"The Bible teaches that disobedience to God can lead to sickness that ultimately is of supernatural origin." [well isnt everything?]

""If you do not obey the LORD your God... The LORD will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess. The LORD will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish." Deut28:15, 21 – 22

"As Jesus bid farewell to this healed man, he made the clearest connection between sin and sickness, warning, "See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you" John 5:14

-The god of abraham is a petulant god.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (12) Oct 25, 2013
@The Ghost of Otto: So glad that you have it all figured out, like, I suppose, John Horgan in "The End of Science"? And how's that Theory of Everything going for you?
Well, myself and many others now know that the god who lied about creation and the flood and the exodus and the resurrection, and who condones and encourages slavery, genocide, misogeny, cannibalism (eucharist), human sacrifice (crucifiction), or self-castration (Matt19:12) cannot be the source of valid info about natural laws or morality.

And so this leaves us free to find the true nature of these things unencumbered by guilt or superstitious bullshit.
Einstein's framework of what would occur on entering a black hole was successfully challenged a few months ago
-And this is how we go about finding the true nature of things - we look at the evidence, make hypotheses, let others examine and test our work, admit it when we are wrong, and make adjustments.

Religions ABHOR this whole process. How come?
andrew_planet
5 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2013
The amphoteric nature of the life giving solvent water and its neutral pH 7 backed by the above does lend to the notion that life is inevitable. This is further supported by the fact that organics and water are universally ubiquitous and form in outer space
tadchem
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2013
The fact that any such liposomes formed and that GFP was produced means something quite UNANTICIPATED is happening. There is some chemistry going on.
Before the liposomes enclose themselves as spheres they must be topologically 'open'.
Any molecules with any hydrophobic character (such as amino acids and most other organic molecules) will show an affinity for these incomplete liposomes by adhering to them, statistically skewing the 'random' associations.
Once the liposomes grow large enough for self-enclosure, the organic molecules which had adhered to them will be enclosed as well, at greatly elevated concentrations.
Cue Dr. Frankenstein and the lightning machine...
AgentOfFate
1 / 5 (17) Oct 25, 2013
Really interesting stuff. Just like the evolution of life, its spontaneous creation seems to be deceptively simple--the closer you look the simpler it can get, but look at the big picture and it seems too impossible to explain scientifically.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 25, 2013
When creationists gets stressed by science, they foolishly retreat to magic texts, pointing out how non-factual their ideas are.

@tadchem: "The fact that any such liposomes formed and that GFP was produced means something quite UNANTICIPATED is happening. There is some chemistry going on."

Chemistry isn't unanticipated, that has been ongoing throughout the universe since inflation ended. Geochemistry just accelerated chemical evolution.

Liposomes are known from asteroids, or at least when their organic materials interact with water, conditions which happens inside large asteroids. [ http://www.ucmp.b...er1.html ]

Bubbles are seldom thermodynamically stable (and then useless for life as they don't eaily grow and divide) and are as quasistable objects common enough so we don't have to accept a constraint of "unanticipated".
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2013
[cont] I've already pointed out how GTP, ATP et cetera nucleobases are likely, anticipated, as results of liposome coevolution.

The astrobiology consensus seems to revolve around the likeness between some forms of geochemistry and early cellular metabolism, implying that there were no "catastrophism" accident but "small survivable step" evolution as per Darwin.

A simple tool against which to judge proposals of "freak life" is that having a deterministic or random process making just one object of some quantifiable type predicts an unnatural amount of finetuning.

@AOF: Your claim is inconsistent.

@Franklins: You are describing, discredited, pseudoscience.

[Not that it matters, but since physicists unlike pseudoscience spouters actually get results, it is obvious they don't rely on math only.

As it happens, when and if you study physics, you will note how physicists have to adapt math to physics modeling. Doable, but not axiomatic mathematical.]
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (22) Oct 25, 2013
Hey Ghost:

Hypothetically, if you were God, and you'd created a universe with intelligent beings created in your image, and they spent most of their time ignoring you, worshiping rocks, stealing one another's spouses, and otherwise just shitting on your name, then what would you do?

If your kids did that to you, you'd surely kick them out of the house.

Don't be surprised when God kicks you out too.
barakn
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2013
Hey Lurker:

Hypothetically, if you were God and you were an omniscient, all-powerful being that could see the future, and you created a bunch of naked apes that you knew were going to be a bunch of abject failures that you would constantly have to punish with strange diseases and whatnot, well, that would make you a fucking douchebad and an abject failure as a god, one that didn't deserve to exist.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2013
"Bubbles are seldom thermodynamically stable (and then useless for life as they don't eaily grow and divide)"

But Liposomes do. Given an environment that contains membrane components, they will self assemble, grow, reach a small fixed size and bud like living cells do.

If you have a self - replicating interior then in such an environment you have a natural mechanism for continued encapsulation and replication.

At that point all you need is an internal mechanism for producing the membrane components internally and you have a very primitive cell.

VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 26, 2013
"intelligent beings created in your image" - Lurker

According to the bible, Man was created in God's image.

Why does God need a Penis?

What does he use his nipples for?

Does he actually use his esophagus for eating?

Eating what?

Does he use his nose? What does he breathe through it?

Why does he have an anus? What does he excrete through it?

Where does God's excrement go?

Are you sure Man was created in God's image as the Christian Bible claims?

_ilbud
2.8 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2013
I'll bet Franklins a libertarian.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (18) Oct 26, 2013
Theory says the precursors to life should not come together like they indeed do! This may be direct support for Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance hypothesis that the whole Universe develops habits.

Dynamic visual simulation of (+/-) zwitterionic POPC molecule in a bilayer membrane, along with stiffening agent cholesterol:
http://www.youtub...ll79EPv0

Careful there Nik, you're trending toward EU theory.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2013
@VendicarE: "But Liposomes do."

Agreed, that was my point there. Quasistable bubbles are far less constrained and downright common, as opposed to tadchem's claims.

Much as I like the "dirty RNA world" of coevolution between all cellular components, I think the implied coevolution between nucleotides and membranes means your description is spot on.

The coupling to alkaline hydrothermal vent metabolism, which seems to be an observable fact by way of homology, must have been later. But it still makes the vents our relatives by ancestry, not the likely coevolved (vent dependent) protocell endosymbionts.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.4 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2013
Oops. The trolling is on, and I inadvertently fed one pseudoscience such. Oh, well.

Also, a creationist troll resorting to death threats which needs to be challenged:

@Franklin: "Nope".

An unsubstantiated and as a check with google gives you, erroneous claim which is merited among 5 year's old but not here.

Pollack is a known crackpot, and his work you pointed to acknowledged as unsubstantiated pseudoscience. I'm not going to do your work for you.

@Lurker2358: "kicks you out too".

Your death threats are what we expect from those of the immoral religious bent. But again, that is on the level of 5 year's old bullying.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2013
Ah, before it is pointed out: Pollack isn't a crackpot elsewhere, as some such he did good work earlier.

The Crackpot Index measures crackpottery whether it originates in the confused thinking of incompetents (which we see many here) or in the area related confusions of those who steps into new territory with delusions of grandeur from earlier success.
beleg
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2013
" The ability to work in crowded place is a result of evolution, not a prerequisite. - TL-OM"
In a sense you are right!

"Gravity plays a role in keeping cells small"
http://phys.org/n...all.html

Gravity is the prerequisite of our planetary evolution of life.
Planets evolve from gravity.
Nice call.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2013
if you were God, and you'd created a universe with intelligent beings created in your image
Dolphins?
and they spent most of their time ignoring you, worshiping rocks, stealing one another's spouses, and otherwise just shitting on your name, then what would you do?
Why in gods name do you think he would care? But the god who kills 1000s of his favorite people just because their leader decided to count heads is probably capable of such sickening pettiness. If he existed that is, which he doesnt.
If your kids did that to you, you'd surely kick them out of the house
The universe is a pretty big house. And the israelites made a pretty big mess in palestine - who cleaned all that up? And who cleaned up the mess after god himself flooded the entire world? Can you imagine the stink??
Don't be surprised when God kicks you out too
The only way 'god' would make the earth unlivable, is if you religionists succeed in destroying it. Which you fully intend to do. Mark 13
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (17) Oct 26, 2013
Rupert Sheldrake and Gerald Pollack, two Electric Universe guys and neither HA nor I was first to mentioned them.... this time.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2013
"29 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door.

30 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." - Jebzuz

Hasn't that generation already passed?

Jebzuz Christ, couldn't he even get that right?
MandoZink
5 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2013
"If God exists, I hope he has a good excuse" - Woody Allen
Sinister1811
2.9 / 5 (21) Oct 27, 2013
God is a myth, and therefore created nothing.
VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2013
Pope Francis: 'Ideological Christians' Are a 'Serious Illness'

http://www.altern...amp;t=19
arq
3 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2013
Which god are you guys talking about...the religious version of god? or the actual god?
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 27, 2013
arq,
Which god are you guys talking about...the religious version of god? or the actual god?


They are not talking about either god. They are talking about the god they can create in their imaginations and which they can therefore easily put down. Take Vendi's rant about God creating man in his image. Vendi doubtless knows that 'in his image' means 'intelligent', but plays man's physical existence against God's spiritual existence because he will do anything to deprecate the notion of God.

Atheists always attack a flawed notion of god because the real god cannot be successfully attacked.
lengould100
5 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2013
Atheists always attack a flawed notion of god because the real god cannot be successfully attacked.
The only possible reaason that "the real god" cannot be attacked is because he/she/it does not exist.
dogbert
1 / 5 (12) Oct 27, 2013
The only possible reaason that "the real god" cannot be attacked is because he/she/it does not exist.


You left out the operative term "successfully". Of course, anything can be attacked. You cannot successfully attack god, but you can successfully attack a straw man you imagine and call god.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2013
the god they can create in their imaginations
Sorry dog you have that backwards. You xians are encouraged to create your own personal god, picking and choosing your favorite catchphrases and snippets from your book and ignoring all the ones you don't like. For instance
the real god cannot be attacked
-Anyone who accepts a god who condones slavery and genocide and human sacrifice and cannibalism and self-mutilation and the stoning of insolent children and wayward women, is obviously being VERY selective in their choice of verses and the interpretation of such.

Of course if you truly believe that mein kampf was divinely inspired, as many did, then you are going to read only good things into it.

Hey did you know that John was the one who originated the idea that the Jews killed christ? LOTS of you xians took him at his word. How many of you still do? Those who don't, have only learned to ignore the literal interpretation of John in their personal god concoction.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2013
"Vendi doubtless knows that 'in his image' means 'intelligent'" - DogBerTard

What a pity for DogBerTard that his bible actually doesn't say anything of the kind.

Even more a pity that according to his bible, God forbade man from eating from the tree of knowledge.

Doesn't seem much point to create a mind in the image of God as TardieBoy asserts, and then prevent it from working.

If the bible - the supposed word of God - had intended to claim what TardieBoy says it claims, then it simply would have said that God created the mind of man in the image of his own mind.

The word "mind" did exist when the bible was written.

DogBerTard's interpretation is quite telling because it isn't interpretation at all, but outright fabrication.

That is what Religious minds do. They lie to themselves.

MandoZink
4 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2013
It is every bit as logical that, under the "he-works-in-mysterious-ways" principle, we should seriously consider the idea postulated by the esteemed philosopher, Bertrand Russell.

"There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago."

I could imagine no better a display of omnipotent genius in such an act. Lotta logic in that, and no less deceptive than the misleading evidence he left for scientists.

On the other hand, what in hell (figure of speech) was he doing before he decided on all this anyhow. I mean, was it a spontaneous act, or was he busy planning for a nearly infinite amount of time?
oneMark
1.3 / 5 (16) Oct 28, 2013
First...
Quote: "study the biomolecules we have today to give us clues about what happened three billion years ago."
This is interesting given the fact that the pegged rate of shrinkage of the sun's diameter is 5ft./hr, which would put the surface of the sun right here where we now stand, just 20 million years ago.

Second...
The equivalent of what they are saying in this article is that they got bricks to form in a controlled environment, and that this gets them a little closer to understanding how the Taj Mahal happened ...Pfff!

PhyS-X
1 / 5 (11) Oct 29, 2013
back in 7th century ... Quran
[21:30] Do they not realize that the heaven and the earth used to be one solid mass that we exploded into existence? And from water we made all living things. Would they believe?

just saying ... science n religion speak similar language ... its how we interpret the language ...
cant they co-exist ... provided both sides have patience for eachother ...
katesisco
1 / 5 (12) Oct 29, 2013
Well, right now our sun is emitting from the equator, something that should not happen in the normal course of events predicted in a solar magnetic reversal. Yet it is doing so.
Note that on Earth science is 'discovering' in depth molecular and atomic structures that previously were undetectable. This is due to a strengthing of focus, a collecting, a drawing together at this level. I suggest this is entirely due to the sun's current magnetic condition with two of the same polarity. I suggest as due to this condition, cellular life with become stronger and more fit. I suggest this has happened in the past. I suggest that this is known in as much as science is 'discovering' new varieties of life.
This is in no way a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
oneMark
1 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
"The irony here is that we now know, since 2012, how life came about. Lane & Martin showed conclusively how it clades within geochemistry (not unexpectedly) by way of metabolism, and more precisely within alkaline hydrothermal vent evolution. [I've given the ref so many times: google it.]"

Gee, I did and came up with this…
"A coherent pathway which starts from no more than rocks, water and carbon dioxide and leads to the emergence of the strange bioenergetic properties of living cells has been traced for the first time in a major hypothesis paper in Cell this week." -- Origin of life emerged from cell membrane bioenergetics.
I think that the dead give-away here is "hypothesis".
Hypothesis:
"an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument"

Gee Torbjorn_Larsson_OM, have you ever herd of "ass u me"? Only in this case, the ASS is on you. You must be an idiot-savant, only without the savant, to claim such an assumption as fact.
oneMark
1 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
"A major win for evolution, we have now an unbroken phylogeny from primordial nucleosynthesis all the way to today's species." – In your delusional dreams ONLY Torbjorn_Larsson_OM.
...Just say'n
oneMark
1 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
The amount of people today who actually believe that dirt got bored of laying around one day, and deciding to spontaneously self-assemble its self into this technological wonder of the universe, we call life (even in its simplest form): pico, nano, micro, and macro-technology of the highest order; the coveted holy grail of science, technology, and engineering today, is a TRUE testament to the utter failure of the public school system today, period. Think brainwashing by corporate interest …there is NO higher power/authority than the STATE!
Osiris1
1 / 5 (13) Oct 31, 2013
According to this research, life could arise ...anywhere!! Spontaneously, and be also seeded to us much more logically by panspermia, a condition not requiring independent times of evolution on each and every planet. Life could become present and sustainable as soon as a solid surface is formed.....and not always need water in great amounts. Because space is loaded with the seeds of life from countless evolutions on myriads of other worlds, including those destroyed by whatever means since some material on most planets can be blasted into space, carrying living organism passengers; and because these seeds of life are most likely very widely distributed, then myriad kinds of DNA could be 'out there'. All descended from the first organisms placed here by God. Sentient life probably special, with sentients thru the aeons carrying God's Great Commission to seed the Universe with sentient souls...his commandments written in their DNA, their minds, and their consciences.
oneMark
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 31, 2013
"According to this research, life could arise ...anywhere!! Spontaneously,"
Anyone with half a clue as to the magnitude in the complexity and sophistication in information (code), and technology involved in even the most simplest "living" organism knows beyond any reasonable doubt that life could not spontaneously arise anywhere, at any time...past or future, period. If they believe this, than they should have even less of a problem believing that dirt can spontaneously self assemble its self into the space shuttle. For that would be a much easier, rational, logical belief. That is because the environment at the macro-scale is a whole LOT less hostile and unpredictable than it is at the nano-scale, not to mention the fact that that space shuttle is stone-age technology in comparison to even the most simplest life form.
VendicarE
not rated yet Oct 31, 2013
"Anyone with half a clue as to the magnitude in the complexity and sophistication in information (code), and technology involved in even the most simplest "living" organism" - Mindless

Only you are suggesting that the origin of life created modern cells in one step.

Why would you suggest such preposterous nonsense?

Don't you know any better?

Look... It really isn't all that difficult to understand.

A natural source of surfactants is available and they naturally form a spherical bylayer membrane roughly the size of a living cell. This is seen to occur naturally.

Chemicals find themselves suitable to be included in the membrane, and are included.

Some of these chemicals are capable of reacting with the content of the interior of the proto-cell to produce other chemicals.

Some of those chemicals produce other chemicals that create more of the surface reactants.

As soon as these proto-cells have the ability to produce more membrane material, they are then capable of CONT...
VendicarE
not rated yet Oct 31, 2013
Cont...

capable of growing and reproducing through budding - just like primitive modern cells do.

They need no genetic material at all, and yet possess all of the properties needed to be called living.

Evolution continues from this point.

VendicarE
4 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2013
"Well, right now our sun is emitting from the equator, something that should not happen in the normal course of events predicted in a solar magnetic reversal" - KatescoTard

What is this magical stuff that it is omitting. I was just looking at the sun this morning and it appears no different than it did last year.

Perhaps you are just confused. Or perhaps you just ate a big pile of steaming dung and are foncused.

Which is it?

VendicarE
not rated yet Oct 31, 2013
"Do they not realize that the heaven and the earth used to be one solid mass that we exploded into existence?" - DuranDuran

If you "realize" this then you are one confused little puppy.

Didn't you know there is no gravity in space?
How could there be a solid mass if there was no gravity?

Besides a universe that was a large solid mass would invalidate the entire StarWars saga.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2013
gods great commission... His commandments written in their DNA
Well if that's true then why did we need a book? God really screwed up with that because his books are full of lies and descriptions of events we know didn't happen.

Are his promises of absolution from guilt, special favors, and eternal life in heaven, also written in our DNA? Do chimpanzees intrinsically know these things as well? The only places I know of that promise these things is in books full of confirmed plagiarisms, forgeries, political propaganda, graffitti, and lies.

They are full of junk just like our DNA. And apparently just like your head. You are right for all the wrong reasons however. We were selected for exactly the kind of morality reflected in biblical law; the tribal dynamic. Internal altruism in conjunction with external animosity.

Thou shalt not kill except for amalakites, canaanites, and other Üntermenschen, as well as apostates, wayward women and insolent children.
btb101
5 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2013
i require proof of god, until I can see, touch and hear the physical, i will have to put my faith in science.
i think thats sensible.
oneMark
1 / 5 (12) Oct 31, 2013
"Only you are suggesting that the origin of life created modern cells in one step.

Why would you suggest such preposterous nonsense?"

Are you serious?! lol!

You really do not have a clue...do you? You can thank public education for that, and the fact that your parents, more than likely, continually lied to you about Santa Clause, tooth fairy, Easter Bunny, to ad nauseam when you were younger. Now it's the corporate controlled, media and its fascist government that now owns you and controls your fantasies.

"As soon as these proto-cells have the ability to produce more membrane material, they are then capable of growing and reproducing through budding - just like primitive modern cells do.
They need no genetic material at all, and yet possess all of the properties needed to be called living."

Living? …PURE unadulterated BS.

The fact is... DNA is the genetic material of ALL "living" organisms, with or without a cell membrane; you must still believe in the blob theory concerning life ...good luck with that.

Let me ask you this VendicarE... if it didn't happen in one step, then how many steps, and how long did this half-baked-nothing have to endure an extremely hostile environment between these steps to finally achieve the status of "actual" life with a purpose--not your fantasy kind …you know, the kind with code (DNA)?
oneMark
1 / 5 (13) Oct 31, 2013
Oh and BTW, not all cell membranes are created equal. Cell membranes as found on/in "living" organisms are anything but simple as depicted in this article, and VendicarE fantasy life forms. No, they are a sophisticated assemblage of nano-tech called "active transport" mechanisms.

And another thing...

Why is Phys.org only allowing me one post/60 minutes, where as VendicarE apparently can post as many as he likes in the same period of time?
An inquiring mind would like to know...
dogbert
1 / 5 (12) Oct 31, 2013
bt101,
i require proof of god, until i can see, touch and hear the physical, i will have to put my faith in science.
i think that is sensible.


It is strange that you require proof of god but will believe many other things without proof.

You have never observed evolution (no one has), but I'll bet you don't require proof of it.
Do you believe in dark matter? No proof of that either.
What do you think about black holes?

Science is only a methodology, yet you have faith in it.

Most of what anyone believes is based on evidence. Very little of what we hold to be reality has been proven. We form our model of reality on the evidence of what we perceive. If we required proof for our model of reality, we would have no model.
oneMark
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 31, 2013
Quoting TheGhostofOtto1923:
"They are full of junk just like our DNA"

You may want to catch up on the latest concerning that so called "junk DNA", which you refer to, which is in fact turning out not to be junk, after all.

Funny how the more we 'think' we know, the more it turns out we don't know.

And you want to know something else that's really funny? These retarded people who think they are debating something by clicking on that equally retarded star rating system at the top of each comment.

Mark
beleg
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2013
@D
Science models grow old, obsolete, and are superseded.
If science is religion, then the faith of science is heresy.
Eikka
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 31, 2013
It is strange that you require proof of god but will believe many other things without proof.


Reasonable propositions require less in the way of evidence because they are more plausible than skygods and horn-demons.

At least someone has ran the math on how they might be possible, as in the case of dark matter, whereas absolutely nothing is known about God, and everyone has a different idea even on what the word itself means!
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2013
Most of what anyone believes is based on evidence. Very little of what we hold to be reality has been proven
Let me describe evidence for you. Evidence is an artifact of an event. It could be the light reflected from an event that just happened, or it could be an effect that that event had on its surroundings which can be interpreted at a later time.

With me so far dog? We have found a great deal of evidence of the latter kind for evolution. Fossils are evidence. Genes are evidence. This evidence is in fact much better than having actually watched evolution happening, because it is evidence that we can examine by innumerable methods and can revisit at our leisure. Visual evidence is far inferior.
you have faith
Science gives us confidence not faith. Faith is belief despite evidence. It is a religionist invention. A lie.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2013
Funny ... the more it turns out we don't know
No, the more we know, the more we know. For instance we know that the flood never happened because the evidence is conclusive.

We also know that there never was an exodus because evidence tells us that there never were 2M jews in goshen who wandered around a sinai desert occupied by garrisoned egyptian soldiers the whole time.

We know joshuas army couldnt have wreaked genocidal havoc in palestine, because the egyptians were firmly in control of it as well. And Jericho was an abandoned ruin by the time joshua would have gotten there.

Etcetc. We have the same sort of confidence that all the other bible tales are fables in a similar vein. What is FUNNY is that you godders will continue to insist that these things are true despite the obvious fact that they arent. Some of you are still insisting that the planets orbit a flat earth.

Oh and dog the epiphany is only proof that people are addiction-prone.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2013
You may want to catch up on the latest concerning that so called "junk DNA", which you refer to, which is in fact turning out not to be junk, after all
See this is an example of how religionists love to jump to conclusions.

"The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project suggested in September 2012 that over 80% of DNA in the human genome "serves some purpose, biochemically speaking". This conclusion however is strongly criticized by other scientists"

-In other words theyre still working on it. When are you going to edit those nasty bits about slavery, self-mutilation, and human sacrifice out of your book?

By the way your book is the only evidence you have that some god will grant your wishes and give you immortality if you beg hard enough. And sadly it is full of verifiable lies.

What else have you got? Hallucinations? Testimony of other peoples hallucinations?
oneMark
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 31, 2013
Religionists? ...You're the one assuming facts not in evidence! ...'junk DNA". I can claim otherwise, until the verdict is in, as you are more than welcome to do yourself. Though I'll put my money on… NOT "junk DNA". We can only ride it out till the conclusive evidence as been established. Until then…what ever floats you boat. Religion is claiming that which is not evident, just like your Darwinian-evolution. If there is conclusive evidence of this assumed fact, would you care to give reference to? I would be more than happy to expose them for what they are: a hoax, a lie/deception, and/or fraud, for gullible people like you. Please don't give imaginary charts, and a few fragmented bones that could be ANYTHING, or evidence for simple micro-evolution, which there is ample evidence for, that can only account for adaptability, and variety within a specific species. See, I also recognize evolution as a fact myself, but only within shown/proven perimeters.
nowhere
5 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2013
It is strange that you require proof of god but will believe many other things without proof.

Much stranger is how you believe in god without evidence, but require evidence before believing in many other things.

dogbert
1 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2013
nowhere,
It is strange that you require proof of god but will believe many other things without proof.


Much stranger is how you believe in god without evidence, but require evidence before believing in many other things.


That would be strange if that were the case. It is not the case.

You are simply erecting a straw man argument in order to knock it down.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2013
Wellll...... No...

"Oh and BTW, not all cell membranes are created equal. Cell membranes as found on/in "living" organisms are anything but simple as depicted in this article, and VendicarE fantasy life form" - OneMark

The primary components of cell membranes are not reactive in any biological way. They are essentially soap films.

Now embedded in those films are a host of proteins that are active in adhesion, chemical transport, maintaining cell structure, cellular reproduction, endocytosis, etc.

However all of those proteins are evolved into their current form.

Originally proto-cells were exceptionally primitive and had no such components embedded in and through them.

The simple step of incorporating self propagating components into the membrane was the only key development needed to transform proto-cells to living cells.

VendicarE
not rated yet Nov 01, 2013
"You really do not have a clue...do you? You can thank public education for that, and the fact that your parents, more than likely, continually lied to you about Santa Clause, tooth fairy, Easter Bunny, to ad nauseam when you were younger" - OneMark

I'm not sure what in your mind causes you to think that any of the garbage above has anything to do with the evolution of cells from naturally occurring, inert, lipid bylayer membranes.

You Brain damaged boy?
VendicarE
not rated yet Nov 01, 2013
"The fact is... DNA is the genetic material of ALL "living" organisms.." - OneMark

All modern living organisms. Times change. Living things evolve.

If your faith is that all living things must contain DNA then you are just setting yourself up for confusion and failure.

Perhaps that is why you have succeeded in confusing yourself.

VendicarE
not rated yet Nov 01, 2013
"Let me ask you this VendicarE... if it didn't happen in one step, then how many steps" - OneMark

Oh, that is easy. It took exactly 5+7*i steps.

Exactly.

nowhere
5 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2013
nowhere,
It is strange that you require proof of god but will believe many other things without proof.


Much stranger is how you believe in god without evidence, but require evidence before believing in many other things.


That would be strange if that were the case. It is not the case.

You are simply erecting a straw man argument in order to knock it down.

True. You have never said you require evidence to believe in the other things, I simply assumed it.
oneMark
1 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2013
Gee VendicarE, do you even know WTF it is you're talking about? You've managed to say absolutely nothing of any meaningful value here; ALL just pure meaningless, imaginative babblings.