Chemists discover plausible recipe for early life on Earth

January 8, 2018, The Scripps Research Institute
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Chemists at The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) have developed a fascinating new theory for how life on Earth may have begun.

Their experiments, described today in the journal Nature Communications, demonstrate that key that support life today could have been carried out with ingredients likely present on the planet four billion years ago.

"This was a black box for us," said Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy, PhD, associate professor of chemistry at TSRI and senior author of the new study. "But if you focus on the chemistry, the questions of origins of life become less daunting."

For the new study, Krishnamurthy and his coauthors, who are all members of the National Science Foundation/National Aeronautics and Space Administration Center for Chemical Evolution, focused on a series of chemical reactions that make up what researchers refer to as the citric .

Every aerobic organism, from flamingoes to fungi, relies on the citric acid cycle to release stored energy in cells. In previous studies, researchers imagined early life using the same molecules for the citric acid cycle as life uses today. The problem with that approach, Krishnamurthy explai20ns, is that these biological molecules are fragile and the chemical reactions used in the cycle would not have existed in the first billion years of Earth—the ingredients simply didn't exist yet.

Leaders of the new study started with the chemical reactions first. They wrote the recipe and then determined which molecules present on early Earth could have worked as ingredients.

The new study outlines how two non-biological cycles—called the HKG cycle and the malonate cycle—could have come together to kick-start a crude version of the citric acid cycle. The two cycles use reactions that perform the same fundamental chemistry of a-ketoacids and b-ketoacids as in the citric acid cycle. These shared reactions include aldol additions, which bring new source molecules into the cycles, as well as beta and oxidative decarboxylations, which release the molecules as carbon dioxide (CO2).

As they ran these reactions, the researchers found they could produce amino acids in addition to CO2, which are also the end products of the citric acid cycle. The researchers think that as biological molecules like enzymes became available, they could have led to the replacement of non- in these fundamental reactions to make them more elaborate and efficient.

"The chemistry could have stayed the same over time, it was just the nature of the molecules that changed," says Krishnamurthy. "The evolved to be more complicated over time based on what biology needed."

"Modern metabolism has a precursor, a template, that was non-biological," adds Greg Springsteen, PhD, first author of the new study and associate professor of chemistry at Furman University.

Making these reactions even more plausible is the fact that at the center of these reactions is a molecule called glyoxylate, which studies show could have been available on early Earth and is part of the citric acid cycle today (called the "Glyoxylate shunt or cycle").

Krishnamurthy says more research needs to be done to see how these reactions could have become as sustainable as the citric acid cycle is today.

Explore further: Scientists find potential 'missing link' in chemistry that led to life on Earth

Related Stories

Designer binders protect silicon battery electrodes

October 20, 2017

In your electric car's battery, swapping an electrode with one made of silicon could let the battery store 10 times more energy. Why isn't silicon used? It falls apart. Scientists designed binders, small molecules and polymers, ...

Jumping hurdles in the RNA world

November 21, 2014

Astrobiologists have shown that the formation of RNA from prebiotic reactions may not be as problematic as scientists once thought.

Recommended for you

Scientists bring polymers into atomic-scale focus

November 12, 2018

From water bottles and food containers to toys and tubing, many modern materials are made of plastics. And while we produce about 110 million tons per year of synthetic polymers like polyethylene and polypropylene worldwide ...

Synthetic molecule invades double-stranded DNA

November 12, 2018

Carnegie Mellon University researchers have developed a synthetic molecule that can recognize and bind to double-stranded DNA or RNA under normal physiological conditions. The molecule could provide a new platform for developing ...

Nitrogen fixation in ambient conditions

November 12, 2018

Abundant in the atmosphere, nitrogen is rarely used in the industrial production of chemicals. The most important process using nitrogen is the synthesis of ammonia used for the preparation of agricultural fertilizers.

New catalyst turns pollutant into fuel

November 12, 2018

Rather than allow power plants and industry to toss carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, incoming Rice University assistant professor Haotian Wang has a plan to convert the greenhouse gas into useful products in a green way.

56 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

orti
1.7 / 5 (9) Jan 08, 2018
"But if you focus on the chemistry, the questions of origins of life become less daunting."

My high school chemistry teacher once told his students that a human is 97 cents worth of chemicals. I have to assume he intended more than a little hyperbole since life is more about information and entropy. From the protein molecules of the cell to societies, life has unique abilities to manipulate and organize both. Life is much more than mere chemistry and it takes much more than chemistry to produce it.
johnhew
5 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2018
I think Szent Gyorgyi would be pleased with this new result establishing our humble glyoxylate beginnings.
If we can't get a decent comment stream on this fantastic result we might as well just talk about climate change.
dfjohnsonphd
1.8 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2018
This article is trivial in the extreme, unless you happen to be excited by intermediary metabolism. It certainly has little, if anything, to do with the origin of life on earth. I have news for them:

All life had a precursor, a template, that was non-biological, and did NOT involve a TCA cycle.

Wake me up when they establish the means by which a self-replicating organism (first life) arose from a complex, inanimate mixture of water, inorganic ions, metabolites, membranes and polymers. This is one for a real Einstein. And even he would have been stumped by this one.......maybe.

The complexity of life:

Complex three dimensional molecules coded on linear sequences of DNA or RNA are essential to life on earth. These 3-D molecules provided the enzymatic and structural features from which life arose. The TCA cycle played no role in this evolution. That arose long after the first life forms got jump-started.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Jan 08, 2018
Life is much more than mere chemistry and it takes much more than chemistry to produce it.

What is this 'much more'? Care to support this with any kind of evidence?

Hint: You can't. End of story.

Life is chemicals (or physics). It's a meaningless label as no definition you care to come up with can delineate life from non-life in a meaningful manner. It may be convenient for humans in our everyday lives to talk about living and dead stuff - but that doesn't mean this has any relevance to how nature works.
woojamon
1 / 5 (10) Jan 08, 2018
Life is much more than mere chemistry and it takes much more than chemistry to produce it.

What is this 'much more'? Care to support this with any kind of evidence?

Hint: You can't. End of story.

Life is chemicals (or physics). It's a meaningless label as no definition you care to come up with can delineate life from non-life in a meaningful manner. It may be convenient for humans in our everyday lives to talk about living and dead stuff - but that doesn't mean this has any relevance to how nature works.


I think I get it. I mean all it takes is some various metals, undergoing some kind of chemistry, to make a car; some concoction of hydrocarbons and polymers and semiconductors undergoing some sort of chemistry to make a computer. Yeah, physics!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2018
@woojamon
I think I get it. I mean all it takes is some various metals, undergoing some kind of chemistry, to make a car
this is the False equivalence argument really, so no, you don't get it

you're assuming that complexity has to be due to intelligent interference whereas we can demonstrate (repeatedly) that complexity can evolve from simpler organisms

Lenski alone can prove this point, but to be sure, this is also demonstrated (repeatedly) in the fossil record as well as modern genetics (with far too many sources you can use to list here. one combined source that is a good start is as follows: http://www.talkor...comdesc/ )

there is no need to establish an intelligent entity as a first cause (god of the gaps) because that only really shifts the question to that origin or source, which really brings everything back to the above
woojamon
1 / 5 (9) Jan 08, 2018
Lol complexity. We have no idea what complexity is, other than a construct relative to one's understanding. What's simple technology today was once considered complex; what's complex technology today will soon be considered trivial.
You think evolution disproves intelligent design? Ha, even we with our primitive primate brains try to build adaptation into the systems we construct, because we know they will face changing environments. How much more would (an) intelligent design(ers) create systems capable of evolving to adapt to an environment that (he/she/it/they) know is certain to be ever-changing? If anything, evolution proves the absolute genius of the design of the biological systems we find here on earth.
No one was talking about evolution from simpler organisms, anyways, so I'll let you take a mulligan for that. It was about the initial reactions that sparked life in the first place. Just because we haven't empirically proven one thing doesn't mean the counter-argument holds
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jan 08, 2018
Lol complexity. We have no idea what complexity is
Hmm: The stem of the word "complexity" - complex - combines the Latin roots com (meaning "together") and plex (meaning "woven")
so therefore, complexity means: The state or quality of being intricate or complicated
you can validate that with the OED if it's too much for you to handle reading here - Websters has pretty much the same write up, along with everywhere else
What's simple technology today was once considered complex
1- strawman
2- simple technology today is simple to use. it is not defined as simple when viewed in history like we are viewing biology and evolution
You think evolution disproves intelligent design?
no
I know that id requires no evidence to validate it, therefore it is not science, whereas Evolution is a proven validated fact of reality that is still being continually supported

your id is a religion
period
full stop
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2018
If anything, evolution proves the absolute genius of the design of the biological systems we find here on earth
god of the gaps combined with strawman
first you have to be able to prove your deity exists in order to validate the claims of id - and that is where things get sticky for you and push into the realm of pseudoscience and religion

because you cannot prove that any deity exists, you cannot state id is science or even valid as it requires a leap of faith to accept
No one was talking about evolution from simpler organisms, anyways
except that your analogy is directly tied to evolution by intent, conscious or otherwise
It was about the initial reactions that sparked life in the first place
and as A_P shows: we can't even define "life" in any meaningful way

this is why your analogy doesn't work, nor your claims about not talking about evolution, as your analogy requires both id and assumes intelligence as a first cause
dfjohnsonphd
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2018
A creation, needing a creator, who needs a creator, Ad infinitum, is a powerful argument against "intelligent design" for anything. Intelligence is best defined through people learned in a science or technology. Deities don't make it. Ignorance may be bliss, but it doesn't have any answers. And if you think science has no answers, ask the survivors at Hiroshima and Nagasaki if they believe in "Nuclear Physics". You will find some answers.

And it is not all "Physics".

"Chemistry" and "Biology" are two well defined and respected sciences. "Physics" won't tell you how DNA polymerase replicates our genomes. That takes "Biochemistry", a different science. "Physics" won't tell you how man arose from lower primates. That takes "Biology", also a very different science. And If you need a definition of the various sciences, try a "dictionary".

Anyone who thinks life cannot be defined in scientific terms would be too ignorant to understand those terms, so I won't bother going there.
dfjohnsonphd
1.7 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2018
@Captain Stumpy, who is the "we" who "can't even define "life" in any meaningful way"? There are a lot of people who can define life in precise and meaningful terms. Not how it arose, but how it works and exists today. Admittedly it is a tad on the complicated side, but definitely well defined by "Biochemistry". Again, I won't go there. Read some books. Using "we" to define all of us can be a bit inaccurate at times.
doogsnova
1 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2018
Who Can Find The Solution/Answer That Frees Mankind?
woojamon
1 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2018
so therefore, complexity means: The state or quality of being intricate or complicated

You found a definition but missed the point. Complex is intricate or complicated for whom? When I encountered calculus in high school, it was complicated. After having written my thesis in complex analysis, that same calculus was no longer intricate or complicated, no longer complex. I understood it. Like I said, complexity is relative to one's understanding. The only reason we call biological life complex is we don't understand it. Maybe a bit here and there, but there are oceans more to learn about these ingenious systems that we continually try to mimic and control and often fail at doing so.

except that your analogy is directly tied to evolution by intent, conscious or otherwise

you brought up the unrelated topic of simpler organisms first, not me. I was just pointing out that you brought up an unrelated argument.

woojamon
1 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2018
... whereas Evolution is a proven validated fact of reality that is still being continually supported

your id is a religion
period
full stop

Is this a counter-argument? I hope not. If you were as astute as you presume to be (are you sure you're not a fedora-topped redditor?), you would have understood that I agree with your statement about evolution. The only different is that I take it as an evidence of intelligent design whereas you don't. Look it's easy as pie: Nature/God/Spaghetti Monster... whoever wanted to create life to not just exist but thrive in a changing environment would have had to be an absolute idiot to not give the creation to ability to evolve and adapt to said changing environment.
woojamon
1 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2018
But stop taking me off-topic. You keep talking biological evolution but this article is nothing about biological evolution, it's about the some POSSIBLE chemicals and chemical reactions that COULD have remained stable over some INDETERMINATE amount time and thus MAY have evolved SOMEHOW to be precursors to the citric acid cycle WHICH (insert your god-of-the-gap-of-CTA-cycle-occurring-in-isolation-somewhere-in-the-primordial-soup-to-magically-and-suddenly-taking-place-inside-an-entire-"simple"-organism-able-to-generate,-host,-control,-and-leverage-the-CTA-cycle) just so happens to be used by all life today. Lots of faith jumps there my friend. Lots.
woojamon
1 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2018
Look the thing with faith is that even scientists have faith, even spending millions of dollars looking for things they haven't yet seen but hope to find, having some idea of what might be out there, maybe having an idea how to look for it. Some things you look for with telescopes, others with microscopes, others with this instrument, others with that one. One instrument can detect this but not that, the other that but not this, another both, another neither; moreover, no instrument can detect what its meant to if not properly calibrated. Perhaps you're an instrument, meant to detect something very specific?

Since you like definitions: "science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

So I say, seek proper "self-calibration", and run observations and experiments with your very life, and you'll see glimpses of something more real than life itself.
dfjohnsonphd
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2018
Faith is something most scientists do not work with. Faith is typically a belief in something without observational and reproducible evidence to support that belief. Scientists (the real ones) operate with a much more powerful persuader - confidence - gained through experimental techniques which provide hard data to support their propositions. Their church is the laboratory.Their proofs are the technologies based on the science. Closed loop, no faith required. All confidence.

By coordinating the cumulative data of real science, those who practice it can design new experiments to continuously extend our level of confidence, and produce ever greater marvels. Faith had nothing to do with getting us to the moon and back. Confidence based on science and technology did that.

Mother Nature is the ultimate proof, and scientists are always prodding her for the right answers. Many times she can be a hard nut to crack.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2018
@dfjohnsonphd
who is the "we" who "can't even define "life" in any meaningful way"? There are a lot of people who can define life in precise and meaningful terms
there is no biological scientific definition that uses clear, concise terminology explaining what "life" is

there are plenty of "lists" but no clear consensus
Anyone who thinks life cannot be defined in scientific terms would be too ignorant to understand those terms, so I won't bother going there
unless you can show a reference that is accepted by the scientific community, then the problem isn't ignorance on my part, but rather on your own

that isn't a jab at your knowledge but rather a specific point about your ignorance on that specific point - it doesn't matter how many philosophers or biologists you have that believe like you do if there is no consensus on the definition in the community
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2018
@woo
You found a definition but missed the point
actually, methinks it is you who missed it
When I encountered calculus...After having written my thesis in complex analysis... I understood it
irrelevant personal data and appeal to authority
you brought up the unrelated topic of simpler organisms first, not me
your analogy assumes creationist ideology which is an appeal to id using the argument of supernatural first cause
that, by definition, in a thread that discusses early life, and by use in a comment about "life is chemicals", specifically holds the connotation that you're making a derisive reference to the need for intelligent intervention for car assembly

it behoves the scientifically literate intellectual to nip the stupidity in the bud in order to prohibit your further transgression from the scientific method

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2018
@woo cont'd
Is this a counter-argument
no
it is a statement of fact
there is no science in intelligent disign
The only different is that I take it as an evidence of intelligent design whereas you don't
and therein lies the problem
if you want to believe in a faith, that is your prerogative
it is not, however, scientific, nor is evolution in any way proof of intelligent design

it simply is enough evidence *for you* because you don't have the stringent requirements of the scientific method, etc
but this article is nothing about biological evolution
evolution includes the origin of life on earth as it's directly relevant to the complexity of life evolving from simple chemicals

in point of fact, it is one of the beginnings of evolution as it's the origin of "life"
But stop taking me off-topic
ahem... this is a science news aggregate, not a religious reddit forum
espousing faith based id and tying it to science is as *off topic* as you can get
unrealone1
1 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2018
So what amino acids where created all 20,22?
A single red blood cell contains approximately 270 million molecules of hemoglobin protein.
The single cell metabolism was originally generated randomly, what are the odds of that?
Can DNA be randomly formed or can it only be formed in a living cell?
Any one noticed the climate lately?
https://www.washi...b-cyclo/
FredJose
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 09, 2018
@Stumpy:
it behoves the scientifically literate intellectual to nip the stupidity in the bud in order to prohibit your further transgression from the scientific method

You'd be well-advised to take your own advice!!!
You have two issues at hand when looking at the atheistic model of life on earth:
1. Abiogenesis and 2. Darwinian evolution.
Both involve creating that most complex abstract entity called Information from purely materialistic random physical and chemical processes. Just how do you explain that in scientific terms? How does random chemical reactions lead to LOGIC - if, then, else, whenever, if and only if then...etc. Biological life is replete with logic at every turn. Without logic NOTHING happens in the biological realm. So if you have logic you have code. And for code to be useful there must exist some decoder. And if you have a code and decoder you have intelligence that put it there in the first place. Explain a naturalistic origin of/for intelligence.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2018
@FredJose Thank's, finally a voice of reason in this swamp!
Flagellum bacteria tail, science can build them randomly all the time?
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2018
@ Fred; Complete bobbins. ID is nothing more than supernatural nonsense. It is no more scientific than the tooth fairy.
Tell me - who designed the designer? Did it evolve, therefore proving evolution? Or was it magicked into existence by some deity, thereby proving that ID is nothing more than a religious belief which has nothing to do with science?
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2018
@FredJose Thank's, finally a voice of reason in this swamp!
Flagellum bacteria tail, science can build them randomly all the time?


And that piece of idiocy is long dead. In fact, one of the experts who helped to show it was wrong, and that ID was a religious belief, was Ken Miller. Who is a Roman Catholic! He testified in the Dover Area School case.
https://en.wikipe...._Miller
Jonseer
5 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2018
The single cell metabolism was originally generated randomly, what are the odds of that?
Can DNA be randomly formed or can it only be formed in a living cell?


Telling you the odds would require that you understand statistics. It's a bit more complicated that horse racing odds.

It's only random to someone who doesn't get basic chemistry.

Elements react with each other certain ways. If a chemist knows what chemicals are in a system he can tell you what will result from their reacting, and the reaction will be the same as long as the conditions are the same.

The problem is that they don't know exactly what the conditions were and how long the process lasted before the first primitive living cell resulted due to the intervening 4 billion years thoroughly obscuring the details.

If you had a grasp of how long a billion years is, you'd realize it makes even the most extreme odds possible as in 1 in a million odds would come to pass 1000x
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2018
@idiot fred the fanatic
You have two issues at hand when looking at the atheistic model of life on earth:
you have a few issues yourself:
1- you ASSume that I am an atheist. (nope)

2- you ASSume that your religion is somehow the only true religion. (it isn't)

3- you ASSume that because you don't have a f*cking clue that everyone else is equally as stupid (we aren't)

4- most importantly: you ASSume that religion is equivalent to Science. (it isn't, otherwise, we would have had Moon landings circa 900 "AD"). h*ll, your "religion" can't even prove it's central prophet exists with records from one of the most verbose and detail oriented empires on the planet before the modern government bureaucracy!

your "id" bullsh*te is an appeal to faith in the vain hope that you've somehow appeased your jealous, narcissistic, infantile and violent homicidal deity so you can stay his abusive perpetual punishment

prove I'm wrong and FOAD, then contact me from beyond!
LOL
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2018
It's only random to someone who doesn't get basic chemistry.

Absolutely. This is highschool stuff - everyone who has attended any chemistry class should be familiar with these kinds of calculations

https://www.chem....ient.htm
dfjohnsonphd
3.1 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2018
@Jonseer, you are wasting your time on reality-based debates with most of these people. Some of them know enough to be comical and entertaining, like ol' Stumpy. Some know enough be dangerous, again, like ol' Stumpy.

Happy trails.......
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2018
Some of them know enough to be comical and entertaining, like ol' Stumpy. Some know enough be dangerous, again, like ol' Stumpy
@dfjohnsonphd
wait: you make a statement that is definitively wrong and can be proven as such, so it's proof that I am dangerous and don't know what I'm talking about?

like I said: you can post all the lists you want, but there is no single definition for "life" unless you're talking specifically to a religious fanatic

period
full stop

otherwise, you would be posting references where there is a consensus showing your list to be the clear definition of life

the problem is that you work in a field where you consider your information to be global or definitive for all science (etc)
it isn't

just ask AA_P, who is an *actual* PhD and in a field to know, which is where my quote came from

you know... the quote you challenged as being wrong and attest to me because ...why?
reading comprehension fail?
what?

woojamon
1 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2018
At the core of the issue is that you refuse to consider the possibility that there's something out there that is awesomely more intelligent than a bunch of highly evolved terrestrial primates. "Oh but there's no evidence..." BS, biology, evolution--yes you yourself--are the evidence. What does much of the frontier of cutting-edge technology look like today? Biomimetics--literally: copying the design of life. Every other article on cutting-edge technology: "Self-Healing Materials on the Horizon!", or "Networks that Learn!", "Autonomous ______!", "Leveraging [some biological process] to better [some scientific endeavor]!", "Taking a cue from [some creature's biology] to construct a better _________!" And so we say, "Look how intelligent we are, we're starting to being able to design technology that mimics biology!" (continued..)
woojamon
1 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2018
Anyone who can read the big fat print between the lines immediately sees the confession that biology has a stupendously superior design to whatever technology we highly evolved terrestrial primates have designed. It's only logical that if the lesser designs (ours) have a designer (us), then the higher designs (biology) also have a designer. Perhaps the IDENTITY of the designer is unproven or currently even unprovable, but there is plenty of evidence to argue EXISTENCE. Life doesn't look like what we think of as technology so we have a hard time identifying it as such, and yet at the same time we're continually trying to refine our technology to look like it, feel like it, adapt like it, and integrate with it. (continued..)
woojamon
1 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2018
It's only a matter of time until we start making life forms ourselves, and then what will we say? "Holy sh**, after centuries of research we finally intelligently designed this life form, maybe the rest of life is intelligently designed technology too?" I hope so, but if today's social climate is any indication, there will probably still be camps of "creation without evolution" nuts and "evolution without creation" nuts duking it out, each still being infected with the same blindness.
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2018
Neutron stars, black holes, gravitational waves, dark matter, dark energy, the big bang, cosmic expansion and fusion suns, all fiction and merely INTERPRETATIONS of data. INTERPRETATIONS to fit a narrative. INTERPRETATIONS of "authority".

"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies."
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2018
https://en.wikipe...iki/Life
Quote:
The criteria can at times be ambiguous and may or may not define viruses, viroids, or potential artificial life as "living".
/
Is an obligate parasite like a virus 'alive' ? Is a marine mega-virus that's bigger than a small bacterium 'alive' ? Is a mini-virus that parasites cells infected by a bigger virus 'alive' ?? Is sperm 'alive' ??
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2018
@woo
At the core of the issue is that you refuse to consider the possibility that there's something out there that is awesomely more intelligent than a bunch of highly evolved terrestrial primates
actually, you're wrong - I consider it as an idea, but I don't consider it as reality

I especially don't consider your personal x-tian deity as legit considering the circumstances as there is physical empirical evidence that your own source is not only blatantly false but also plagiarized and falsely authored
Anyone who can read the big fat print between the lines immediately sees the confession that biology has a stupendously superior design to whatever technology we highly evolved terrestrial primates have designed
if you compare the eye to a camera, you will see the point I made as it directly contradicts your claims

in point of fact: CERN and LIGO also directly prove you are wrong

keep dreaming, woo-woo
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2018
@woo-woo cont'd
It's only a matter of time until we start making life forms ourselves
yeah, because no human, ever, has ever created a life form to carry on the species...[sarc/satirical hyperbole]
LMFAO
...there will probably still be camps of "creation without evolution" nuts and "evolution without creation" nuts duking it out, each still being infected with the same blindness
blindness in this regard stems from your ignorance on the subject combined with your religious fanaticism

there is nothing wrong with saying you don't know, which science regularly does

science then makes a hypothesis about the unknown based on prior knowledge, determines a way to test it, compares the data, etc...
you know: https://en.wikipe...cess.svg

therein lies the difference between science and religion
unrealone1
1 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2018
Flagellum bacteria electric motor randomly formed?
Single cell metabolism randomly formed from stone fragments in a stream?
Have you seen this "evolution", then it sounds like "Faith" based science?
Darwinism = small micro observable changes over observable time.
I'm still waiting for the how a DNA Helix can randomly form and carry information out side of a living cell?
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2018
Flagellum bacteria electric motor randomly formed?


Err, yes. Just because it is beyond your ability to understand it, doesn't turn it intro some sort of idiotic supernatural woo. As shown by Kenneth Miller (a Roman Catholic!) at the Dover school case. Which the ID loons lost. They lost for a reason - they are wrong. Their beliefs have nothing to do with science. Take this rubbish to a supernatural woo site. It ain't science.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2018
It's only a matter of time until we start making life forms ourselves, and then what will we say? "Holy sh**, after centuries of research we finally intelligently designed this life form, maybe the rest of life is intelligently designed technology too?" I hope so, but if today's social climate is any indication, there will probably still be camps of "creation without evolution" nuts and "evolution without creation" nuts duking it out, each still being infected with the same blindness.


Idiotic argument. Who designed the designer? Did it evolve? Or was it supernatural woo? There's only one place you can go with that, proving that your insane beliefs are nothing more than creationism in disguise. Whatever it is, it isn't science.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2018
Have you seen this "evolution", then it sounds like "Faith" based science?


Yes. Now, who designed the designer? Pure faith and supernatural woo, n'est-ce pas?
woojamon
1 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2018
Idiotic argument. Who designed the designer? Did it evolve? Or was it supernatural woo? There's only one place you can go with that, proving that your insane beliefs are nothing more than creationism in disguise. Whatever it is, it isn't science.

Yes. Now, who designed the designer? Pure faith and supernatural woo, n'est-ce pas?


Oh je peux aller plursiers d'endroits avec ça! You want to go places? Let's go to the place where we talk about your underlying assumption that just because something exists implies it must have a beginning; or your deeper underlying assumption about the unidirectionality of time, which is required to permit the concept of a "beginning" in the underlying assumption of your "counter-argument"; we may even go so far as to question your even deeper underlying assumption of the universality of the experience of time (and space, for that matter) that all things even experience time the same way (they don't). (continued..)
woojamon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2018
So to go back our lovely SCIENCE. Certainly you're aware and believing of the fact that time is not experienced the same by all observers, and that in fact even photons experience neither time or distance since they travel at the speed of light. So there you have a reference point where a physical thing exists which has the perspective of having neither end nor beginning, and from its perspective exists at all places at once along what we call its "path" from our perspective. Even more, it is perfectly scientifically valid to acknowledge a photon's frame of reference as valid. Even now, results from quantum physics continue to challenge our concepts of time and space and how the universe works at a fundamental level, showing just how fluid and interchangeable and unbounded the concepts of time and space are. If even a simple photon can have such a perspective of time and space, it doesn't surprise me to hear God talk about it in a similar way. It's a scientifically valid perspective!
leetennant
5 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2018
A creation, needing a creator, who needs a creator, Ad infinitum, is a powerful argument against "intelligent design" for anything. Intelligence is best defined through people learned in a science or technology. Deities don't make it. Ignorance may be bliss, but it doesn't have any answers. And if you think science has no answers, ask the survivors at Hiroshima and Nagasaki if they believe in "Nuclear Physics". You will find some answers.

And it is not all "Physics" .


But it is all turtles. All. The. Way. Down.
leetennant
5 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2018

Have you seen this "evolution", then it sounds like "Faith" based science?


We see evolution every flu season.

Idiotic argument. Who designed the designer? Did it evolve? Or was it supernatural woo?.


It's the invisible pink dragon in my kitchen. Worship or die.
FredJose
1 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2018
@Stupmy:
science then makes a hypothesis about the unknown based on prior knowledge, determines a way to test it, compares the data, etc...

That makes the big bang, abiogenesis and darwinian evolution part of the naturalistic religion since none of it can observed, verified or tested. They all lie outside of science proper as we define it.
You still haven't answered the question as to how abstract entities like logic and complex information can be created via purely naturalistic/materialistic random physical and chemical processes.
Biological life contains processes that are absolutely dependent on LOGIC. Which implies codes and decoders which in turn implies intelligence. How does purely random physical/chemical processes create the abstract entity intelligence?
Please explain that to us.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2018
We do not see "Evolution" in the creation of species, the massive amount on "new" DNA that magical appears and we have a new species is not Darwinism.
The Human voice box is a great example 280 gens unique to Humans magically appears? it was not a small micro change observable over time?
The Flu season is an example of evolution, but the Flu does not change "species" mutations with in its DNA code will never create a new species.
rrwillsj
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2018
I just want to make it perfectly clear to a the 'True Believers' of Intelligent Design and the supernatural creator...That the deity resents you trying to blame it for how reality is so screwed up! And your implication that the deity is stupid.

Now the deity and I talk every now and then. The deity makes fun of me for being a materialist atheist and I poke fun right back. Joking about the deity being a 13+ billion year old infant. Still just a baby!

I try to reassure the deity that your imposition of superstitious drivel is just part of your monkey heritage. That biological evolution is pretty much a dead-end for the evolution of intelligence.

That the religious believers not only carry the burden of being programmed with millions of years of primate instincts. But also a thousand generations of worshiping pharaoh. That they are all descended from a long lineage of slaves, serfs and other menial servants.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 10, 2018
@idiot fred
part of the naturalistic religion since none of it can observed, verified or tested. They all lie outside of science proper as we define it
so, what you are saying is that because a cop doesn't actually "observe" a crime that there are no methods to determine what happened?

need I remind you just how idiotic that is considering there is an entire science behind determining what happened in a crime?

this is where your idiotic argument goes "straight to h*ll" [intended]
just because you didn't personally see the moon rise, is that evidence in your mind that the moon didn't exist that night?
ROTFLMFAO
You still haven't answered
1- what is the point in answering any science question to an idiot religionist when said idiot doesn't believe in reality?

2- just because science can't answer the origin of life right now doesn't mean they never will answer it: remember Gravity, QM or Medicine?

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2018
@idiot fred cont'd
Biological life contains processes that are absolutely dependent on LOGIC
assumption based on your religious interpretations

more to the point: the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you -Dr. NDT

the problem you have with science is that you expect it to still abide by your religious tome

considering your tome was plagiarized and is proven to be mostly false stories of fanciful belief, it stands to reason that your faith in said tome as factual is representative of the problem with communicating science to you
Please explain that to us
first answer this question: if something moves apparently of its own volition and it has no source of power that you can see or measure, is it alive?

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2018
@rrwillsj
and I poke fun right back. Joking about the deity being a 13+ billion year old infant. Still just a baby!
technically speaking: if a deity is infinite, per the claims of the religious idiots, then it will always be an "infant",and immature by definition, as there will always be an infinite amount of time for it to live
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2018
Wake me up when they establish the means by which a self-replicating organism (first life) arose from a complex, inanimate mixture of water, inorganic ions, metabolites, membranes and polymers
It will be a short nap. The closer science gets, the more religionists sweat.
Faith is something most scientists do not work with. Faith is typically a belief in something without observational and reproducible evidence to support that belief. Scientists (the real ones) operate with a much more powerful persuader - confidence - gained through experimental techniques which provide hard data to support their propositions
Well put. I've often said this but not quite with the same eloquence.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2018
technically speaking: if a deity is infinite, per the claims of the religious idiots, then it will always be an "infant",and immature by definition


"When you can flatten entire cities at a whim, a tendency towards quiet reflection and seeing-things-from-the-other-fellow's-point-of-view is seldom necessary."
-- Terry Pratchett [Small Gods]
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (1) Jan 11, 2018
CS, I'm not going to be the one to explain to the deity that she will never get to pull up her 'Big Girl" panties!
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 11, 2018
A creation, needing a creator, who needs a creator, Ad infinitum, is a powerful argument against "intelligent design" for anything. Intelligence is best defined through people learned in a science or technology. Deities don't make it. Ignorance may be bliss, but it doesn't have any answers. And if you think science has no answers, ask the survivors at Hiroshima and Nagasaki if they believe in "Nuclear Physics". You will find some answers.

And it is not all "Physics" .


But it is all turtles. All. The. Way. Down.

And they're all turning female...
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 11, 2018
CS, I'm not going to be the one to explain to the deity that she will never get to pull up her 'Big Girl" panties!

By the looks of things in our Universe, she reached puberty at 5 seconds after a BB, and she hasn't stopped reproducing since. So those panties never existed in the first place...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.