Origin of life in membraneless protocells

October 9, 2018, Max Planck Society
Origin of life in membraneless protocells
Fluorescence microscopic image of membraneless microdroplets (coacervates). The green fluorescence proves RNA enzymatic activity within the coacervates. Credit: Drobot and Tang / MPI-CBG

How life arose from non-living chemicals more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth is a still-unanswered question. The RNA world hypothesis assumes that RNA biomolecules were key players during this time as they carry genetic information and act as enzymes. However, one requirement for RNA activity is that there are a certain number of molecules within close enough proximity to one another. This would be possible if RNA was contained within a compartment, such as membraneless microdroplets (coacervates). Researchers at the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics in Dresden and the Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry in Martinsried have shown for the first time that simple RNA is active within membraneless microdroplets, enabling a suitable environment for the beginning of life.

The RNA world hypothesis assumes that originates from self-replicating RNA, a biomolecule which was present before the evolution of DNA and proteins. However, researchers assume that on an early planet Earth concentrations of RNA and their building blocks may have been too dilute for a reaction to take place. Therefore, the scattered RNA molecules needed to find a way to one another to create a reaction and start life. Suitable places for accumulating RNA could have been within compartments. Compartments can be formed with a membrane such as the cell or without a membrane where molecules can exchange readily with their environment. Membraneless compartments can be formed by phase-separation of oppositely charged molecules, a process that is similar to the separation of oil drops in water.

In their study, the researchers proved for the first time that RNA is active within such membraneless microdroplets, supporting a previous hypothesis that coacervates act as protocells and could therefore be a precursor of the cell that exists today. The ability of coacervates to accumulate RNA would have helped to overcome the dilution problem of biomolecules and offered a suitable environment for reactions with each other. Furthermore, these membraneless droplets allow free transfer of RNA between the droplets. Dr. Björn Drobot, the first author of this study, explains: "One of the really exciting things is that we have shown that coacervates act as a controlled genetic transfer system, in which shorter RNA pieces can shuttle between droplets while longer pieces are trapped in the hosting microdroplet. In this way, these protocells (coacervates) have the ability to transfer genetic information between other protocells which would have been an important criterion for starting life."

Those findings show that membraneless microdroplets are beneficial for a selective accumulation of RNA. Dr. Dora Tang, who led the project points out: "It was hypothesized by a Russian scientist (Oparin) in the 1920s that coacervate droplets could have been the first compartments on earth and existed before cells with a membrane evolved. They provide a way for biomolecules to concentrate create the first life on Earth. The study from my lab adds to a body of work from us and others where there is increasing evidence that coacervates are interesting systems for compartmentalization in origin of life studies as well as studies in modern biology and synthetic biology."

Explore further: What can salad dressing tell us about cancer? Think oil and vinegar

More information: Björn Drobot et al. Compartmentalised RNA catalysis in membrane-free coacervate protocells, Nature Communications (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-06072-w

Related Stories

Coated droplets hint at formation of early cells

April 25, 2014

(Phys.org) —Researchers at the University of Bristol have designed a chemical system that brings together alternative ideas on how primitive cells were formed on the early Earth to produce a new model of protocell organization. ...

Uncovering the design principles of cellular compartments

December 6, 2017

Membraneless organelles are tiny droplets inside a single cell, thought to regulate everything from division, to movement, to its very destruction. A better understanding of these mysterious structures could hold the key ...

Recommended for you

Carbon fuels go green for renewable energy

December 18, 2018

For decades, scientists have searched for effective ways to remove excess carbon dioxide emissions from the air, and recycle them into products such as renewable fuels. But the process of converting carbon dioxide into useful ...

51 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

V4Vendicar
1.3 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2018
membranes came first'
Morelli
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2018
Great job, but, still a scientific wrong worldview is avoiding to see the obvious here. From where Nature got the mechanism of self-replication? What else was - in the state of the world at that time and before that time - doing self-replication ? What means, which is the natural force, that produces the function of self-replication? Who drove the terrestrial atoms composing rocks, water, air, suddenly to such never seen before new connections that produced biomolecules? And why complex biomolecules?
There is a new theory with a new world view that suggests explanations for all these questions following a unique logic line: linking cosmological evolution with biological evolution we can find the picture of an evolutionary link, like a kind of non-biological DNA. The picture is at my website and it solves all these questions. Of course, while I can not show the real link, it is merely a theory. But theories are the drivers for science to find out the next missing information...
Morelli
1 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2018
membranes came first'

Well... you are right. Before life's origins, there were membranes in the sky, composed as membranes and working as membranes: the horizon event surrounding galactic nuclei. So, why Nature should to do the hard work of creating from nothing (applying magics?) the natural phenomena called "membrane", if it already exists? Life which real name is "biological system" was generated here by the forces and elements existing in a planet belonging to a surrounding natural system called "solar", which is inside other called Milk Way. It is always systems down. It is the same and unique evolutionary lineage. Of course, galaxies are our ancestors like bacteria are.So, really, membranes came first. I can't understand why humans arbitrarily decided to separate universal evolution into two blocks without any evolutionary link between them... can you explain me? Thanks...
BEGINNING
1.5 / 5 (17) Oct 10, 2018
The Answer is still in Genesis 1. Life is too irreducibly complex, miniaturized, environment dependent, fragile, specified, integrated and coded information dependent to arise by random natural processes. Only an instantaneous supernatural origin can explain the origin of life.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2018
The Answer is still in Genesis 1. Life is too irreducibly complex, miniaturized, environment dependent, fragile, specified, integrated and coded information dependent to arise by random natural processes. Only an instantaneous supernatural origin can explain the origin of life.

says BEGINNING

Precisely!! But the answers in Genesis1 and the following verses that dealt with the actual Creation had been misrepresented by its writers who did not follow 'word for word' dictation from the Spirit forms who had told them what to write, and of which the writers chose to misrepresent by not explaining the proper sequences and in more details. In other words, the human desire to obfuscate had won over the Full Truth.

Thus, it became a loosely worded conglomeration of what should have been the 'history of the Creation' that, in the millennia to come after, confused and distorted to the readers what should have been a beautiful and accurate telling of how God created everything.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2018
-continued-
Humans, probably due to the DNA that they share with animals, tend to take most anything at 'face value', and only the rare breed will see the value in exploring further what they have read - getting into the heart of the matter to discover the true framework in its glorious detail.

The greater majority who have read the Bible and misunderstood, then rejected it, including those who scoff at Genesis1 in the Bible and those who are unbelievers/atheists by nature, particularly those who curse God the Creator, will not be denied their just and rightful rewards. But misunderstandings are not an excuse to commit what are regarded as Sins against God and mankind - for man, as a sentient being, has the ability to discuss and read between the lines of what has been written in the Bible, particularly in Genesis1 and following verses/chapters. And Genesis1 all the way up to Abraham regards ALL of humanity - not just Hebrews.
Life is fleetingly short and eternity is long.
carbon_unit
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2018
So God created everything, then could not find scribes to accurately record His word and pass it down? (Or do it Himself clearly and unambiguously to all people??) Riiiiiiight.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Oct 10, 2018
Precisely!! But the answers in Genesis1 and the following verses that dealt with the actual Creation had been misrepresented by its writers who did not follow 'word for word' dictation from the Spirit forms who had told them what to write, and of which the writers chose to misrepresent by not explaining the proper sequences and in more details. In other words, the human desire to obfuscate had won over the Full Truth.

You're right - it was a damned anthropologically designed conspiracy...
Who knew...?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 10, 2018
So God created everything, then could not find scribes to accurately record His word and pass it down? (Or do it Himself clearly and unambiguously to all people??) Riiiiiiight.

says carbon unit

There is much misunderstanding of the Bible, that God is the one who wrote the Book - or dictated the history to the writers. No such thing. When I said "Spirit forms" I was not talking about the Creator himself, but other 'entities' who also had knowledge of the Beginning.

But you and all other humans are welcome to disbelieve - or whatever you choose to do.

:)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 10, 2018
LOL Right there, both Carbon Unit and WhydeG have misinterpreted MY 3 posts in answer to another poster's statement.
That is proof for the common misunderstandings, whether deliberate or not, that humanity tends to read into things, that are, in reality, only according to their own personal biases and beliefs.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2018
membranes came first


That is not what this research says, nor do you refer to alternatives. That membranes contributed is one possibility, coarcevates is another. But since phylogenies identify alkaline hydrothermal vents as the emergence locale and it had rock compartments, who could concentrate organics to boot according to experiments, it is a rather uninteresting question whether or not other pathways contributed.

https://www.natur...l2016116

From where Nature got the mechanism of self-replication?


From where did the universe got stars, planets and eventually organics laced oceans? From its mechanisms of course. Specifically phylogenies tend to identify alkaline hydrothermal vents as the emergence locale (see above), and they can do thermal cycling replication. Using enzymes you have PCR which is used routinely in labs, or if not there have been demonstrations using metal catalysts or even - slowly - spontaneous reactions.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2018
""How life arose from non-living chemicals more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth is a still-unanswered question. The RNA world hypothesis assumes that RNA biomolecules were key players during this time as they carry genetic information and act as enzymes. However, one requirement for RNA activity is that there are a certain number of molecules within close enough proximity to one another. This would be possible if RNA was contained within a compartment, such as membraneless microdroplets (coacervates).""

Genetic information can only be handed down from a previous generation, which is why it is called Genetic. Genes and RNA biomolecules can't be made available to a coacervate, unless it had acquired it from a living source of RNA biomolecules, such as infusing it and then expecting the molecules to become a living life form.

This research is full of only hypotheticals and expectations, and will not create Life from non life however long it is attempted.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2018
Routinely on science sites we see magic babbling, falsehood spouting superstitious religious people who stroke their own egos - since they cannot expect that their act will "convert" anyone else.

Everyone wish they would stop ... they never will. But it is a good reminder that Europe recently went majorly non-religious, because religion is not an alternative to science.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2018
Genetic information can only be handed down from a previous generation


You posted this falsehood right after I posted a reference showing a pathway from geology over the half alive, still not entirely genetic trait using, last universal common ancestor to extant life.

But more generally, that is *precisely* what evolution shows does not happen. The genome of the next generation randomly changes (drifts) or learns (selection), which is why genetic information comes and goes - aka "evolution".

Stop stroking your ego and read the comments and their references, maybe you will learn something. It *is* a science site after all. Even better, look up "evolution" on Wikipedia and start reading since you know nothing about it. (And yet tries to make claims - oy.)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2018
@tbgl
When you said:

"posted a reference showing a pathway from geology over the half alive, still not entirely genetic trait using, last universal common ancestor to extant life."

You are engaging in Double-Speak.
What exactly is a "last universal common ancestor"?
There is NO pathway in geology from something that is "half alive". Either it is fully alive or it is not (dead), or has never been alive .
A last common ancestor?? If the object had a "last common ancestor", then the genes/RNA from it would have been handed down/passed on to that new generation life form. If the ancestor had gone through the process of evolving, that too would be passed onto the offspring.

I've never had a problem with Evolution and its effects/changes on life forms, and I've known for a very long time, and agreed that Evolution is a normal occurrence, AS THE NEED ARISES. Religionists reject Evolution for their own reasons. I don't because I am a Creationist. Evolution is part of Creation
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2018
Routinely on science sites we see magic babbling, falsehood spouting superstitious religious people who stroke their own egos - since they cannot expect that their act will "convert

Everyone wish they would stop ... they never will. But it is a good reminder that Europe recently went majorly non-religious, because religion is not an alternative to science.
says tbgl

I have no idea of whom you speak in this science site. Certainly I/we have no intention whatsoever of converting ANYONE to Creationism, as that would be a major infringement of the Law that all of humanity is free to exercise their Free Will to make their own choices and whatever may come of it.

Yes, Europe has become anti-Christianity (a religion), but is embracing the murderous faithful of the religion of Mohammad and its perfunctory nod to equality. That is hilarious, so much so that I dread the fates of those I left behind. Not all of Europe is brain damaged yet, but they are now in the minority
Phyllis Harmonic
4 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
Only an instantaneous supernatural origin can explain the origin of life.


Where do supernatural agents live? By what forces do they apply their influence? What is the mechanism of their agency? How do you recognize them?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2018
And as I have already said, "Genetic information can only be handed down from a previous generation" Life from Life

That information may have come from skin cells, blood or any other source that was once a part of living matter. Chemicals in water or a slimy substance may be composed of necessary nutrients and other chemistry that could 'kick-start' the processes whereby a unicellular life form might later emerge, but chemistry, of and by itself, cannot and does not produce LIFE as the end product.

Once you understand that basic principle, then you can understand also that Evolution is a byproduct of that emergence of Life, and that Chemicals, no matter how accurate in quantity and quality they are - gathered in one place - will NOT bring forth LIFE even if pushed and shoved into the shape of an coacervate, or whatever shape/membrane or membraneless configuration that they can dream up.

BTW - my ego is none of your concern.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2018
Only an instantaneous supernatural origin can explain the origin of life.


Where do supernatural agents live? By what forces do they apply their influence? What is the mechanism of their agency? How do you recognize them?
says PhyllisH

Why do you ask? You, who have appeared to negate the presence on Earth and elsewhere of that which your eyes and instruments are unable to detect. Is it just curiosity or do you seek some amusement to while away your time in this website and life in general?
They were here long before even the first unicellular life form emerged from the deep. And they were already here to witness the birth of the Star which you refer to as the Sun.
And they were already here when the first man was created by the Creator of everything.
Matter is a creation out of Quantum particles which can be manipulated, as man is currently trying to do, as though man is competing with God to outdo Him.
Man is so foolish - and Satan understands this.
IwinUlose
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2018
Genes and RNA biomolecules can't be made available to a coacervate, unless it had acquired it from a living source of RNA biomolecules, such as infusing it and then expecting the molecules to become a living life form.


Please elaborate on how RNAs are formed; so that we can all be up to speed.

Also, from the 4 paragraph press release above:
Those findings show that membraneless microdroplets are beneficial for a selective accumulation of RNA.
IwinUlose
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2018
Why do you ask? You, who have appeared to negate the presence on Earth and elsewhere of that which your eyes and instruments are unable to detect. Is it just curiosity or do you seek some amusement to while away your time in this website and life in general?
They were here long before even the first unicellular life form emerged from the deep. And they were already here to witness the birth of the Star which you refer to as the Sun.
And they were already here when the first man was created by the Creator of everything.
Matter is a creation out of Quantum particles which can be manipulated, as man is currently trying to do, as though man is competing with God to outdo Him.
Man is so foolish - and Satan understands this.

Please provide a manner of proof for things the eyes and instruments fail to detect.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2018
What the religionistas forget is that everything they claim is based on inference. Were they standing there watching the super magic sky daddy make anything at all?
Phyllis Harmonic
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2018
Why do you ask? . . . Is it just curiosity or do you seek some amusement to while away your time in this website and life in general?


There's nothing amusing about your insistence on supernatural agency. Nor is there anything of value in your reply, especially where physics is concerned. The fact that you insist on posting this BS here only shows you to be a rank provocateur.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
Please provide a manner of proof for things the eyes and instruments fail to detect
The religionist response to evidence is faith. Faith is belief despite evidence. Faith is the disdain for evidence.

A brilliant invention - it celebrates the rejection of reason and evidence. It rewards ignorance and superstition with the assurance that if you hold out, not only will you get everything you ever wanted but you get to live forever in paradise.

And it only takes a biscuit to get a dog to do tricks for you.

"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."
Martin Luther
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
""Set fire to their synagogues or schools," Martin Luther recommended in 'On the Jews and Their Lies'. Jewish houses should "be razed and destroyed," and Jewish "prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, [should] be taken from them...

"Luther also urged that "safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews," and that "all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them." What Jews could do was to have "a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade" put into their hands so "young, strong Jews and Jewesses" could "earn their bread in the sweat of their brow.""

-which gives an indication of what the religions all require for all that goodness and mercy they wish to bestow upon you.

Nothing is free. One would expect that the price of immortality to be among the steepest.

But what the heck - we're all slaves of the living god so the jews should be happy for the chance to serve.
IwinUlose
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2018
Zealotry in faith has often resulted in a bloody stain on human history... but broadly coloring religion by the words of one of history's most cantankerous characters is probably a little unfair.

Mendel, regarded as a founding father of genetics was a friar and an abbot(?). Some people get the allegorical nature of their book(s) and some don't, much to the detriment of those around them.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2018
Why do you ask? . . . Is it just curiosity or do you seek some amusement to while away your time in this website and life in general?


There's nothing amusing about your insistence on supernatural agency. Nor is there anything of value in your reply, especially where physics is concerned. The fact that you insist on posting this BS here only shows you to be a rank provocateur.
says PhyllisH

You still haven't given me a good enough answer. Why do you ask? I am not trying to be amusing when I asked you that question.
It happens that the title of the article is: "ORIGIN OF LIFE in membraneless protocells". I am in this forum to see what lies are being told wrt the Origin of Life. The gist of the story is that, in their opinion, life can be created solely by chemical means. If that were the case, then there should be evidence of chemically-induced life everywhere there are such chemicals even NOW.
Where is it? Do you know? All I see is evidence of evolution
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2018
Genes and RNA biomolecules can't be made available to a coacervate, unless it had acquired it from a living source of RNA biomolecules, such as infusing it and then expecting the molecules to become a living life form.


Please elaborate on how RNAs are formed; so that we can all be up to speed.

Also, from the 4 paragraph press release above:
Those findings show that membraneless microdroplets are beneficial for a selective accumulation of RNA.
says IloseUwin

RNA contains the genetic information that is required for all cells. You have over a trillion in your own body. That information can't come from something that has never had life previously. The researchers have acquired the RNA they are using, from an organism, whether alive or has died. They transplanted the RNA into a micro droplet, and then waited for it to come alive. It didn't and it won't. But they will keep trying and keep failing. There is no such thing as Membraneless organisms.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2018
-contd-
And there has been no such occurrence anywhere in Nature of a membraneless cell that has the ability to evolve into a multicellular life form. Chemicals, even with water and a source of heat is not enough to create LIFE. Researchers will try anything - almost out of desperation. Sad.
And why do they want to accumulate RNA in a membraneless micro droplet? It is completely illogical.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2018
Zealotry in faith has often resulted in a bloody stain on human history... but broadly coloring religion by the words of one of history's most cantankerous characters is probably a little unfair.

Mendel, regarded as a founding father of genetics was a friar and an abbot(?). Some people get the allegorical nature of their book(s) and some don't, much to the detriment of those around them.
says IloseUwin

You do realise, don't you, that by making such statements in favour of religion, even in a broader sense, that you may make enemies in this forum - those who are haters of religions and the Creator?
There is much hate toward Christianity, even Jews, but I have yet to see/read any hatred toward the murderous Muslims who are streaming into Europe and the UK, bringing their religious beliefs into these nations and threatening to take over and convert them or kill them.
I am certain that these Muslims will accomplish their goals. It will be fun to watch how it happens.
IwinUlose
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2018
It sounds like you have confused DNA with RNA; and there is nothing in the press release or the cited paper about trying to bring anything to life.
You do realise, don't you, that by making such statements in favour of religion, even in a broader sense, that you may make enemies in this forum

Oh no!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2018
Actually, no I didn't confuse the two.
DNA = genes
RNA = information and ?

Both are amazing structures, don't you think?

They are attempting to find that key to creating life.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2018
Zealotry in faith ... broadly coloring religion by the words of one of history's most cantankerous characters is probably a little unfair
Its IN the BOOKS. The books ARE the religions. And the religions never change their BOOKS.

And so eventually, as always, the worst will come out. God demands it.
Some people get the allegorical nature of their book(s) and some don't, much to the detriment of those around them
'Allegory'. One of the more disgusting apologetics. Are the 10 commandments allegorical? Who gets to choose what is allegorical and what is not? Where in the bible is the distinction made between option and mandate?

Nowhere. The gospel of john says the jews killed christ. The Torah itself is explicit on how to treat blasphemers and proselytizers and wayward women and insolent children and slaves.

And efforts to remove them by cute progressive translations and clever reinterpretations is especially foul.

We all know what god said and what he wants.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2018
You do realise, don't you, that by making such statements in favour of religion, even in a broader sense, that you may make enemies in this forum - those who are haters of religions and the Creator?
There is much hate toward Christianity, even Jews, but I have yet to see/read any hatred toward the murderous Muslims who are streaming into Europe and the UK, bringing their religious beliefs into these nations and threatening to take over and convert them or kill them.
I am certain that these Muslims will accomplish their goals. It will be fun to watch how it happens.

I don't think I've ever seen a Muslim proselytize in a commentary on Physorg before.
When they do, I'm sure they'll see their own fair bit of derision...
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2018
It's not the "religion" that people "hate" -
It's the arrogance, lack of hubris and open-mindedness that we've seen Christians and Creationists imbue in their comments. It's like they've come in looking to start an argument.
Less combativeness and a little humility might make things a little easier for you all...
or not...
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2018
If we've gone from inorganic origin of life to insulting religion, it sounds like the religionists are butthurt again.

So, gonna burn some more people at the stake? Just askin'.

And while I'm askin', isn't that what the Taliban and Daesh do? Sorry the Taliban and Daesh are butthurt because people look through telescopes. Get over it.
Phyllis Harmonic
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
It's like they've come in looking to start an argument.


Their faith is less than perfect so they harbor niggling doubts that disturb them to their cores. So, they have to constantly work at convincing themselves that what they believe is "true." As part of that, they come here to argue their faith. They also come to experience persecution. The persecution bit is part of a martyr syndrome- nothing like being persecuted for your beliefs to give one a sense of validation by "suffering" like their ultimate martyr. It's really rather perverse.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2018
So God created everything, then could not find scribes to accurately record His word and pass it down? (Or do it Himself clearly and unambiguously to all people??) Riiiiiiight.

says Carbon Unit

Try reading what I have already posted about the writers of Genesis. The writers were men and men have Free Will and it is their Free Will that they exercised to write only according to what their interpretations of what was dictated to them.

God Himself did not "write" the Bible, as SpookyOtto seems to claim. The Creator left it to man to write, and for Angels to guide them in that writing. But man always thinks he knows best - thereby confusing those who later read Genesis.

Another thing: The Genesis portion of the Bible is about ALL of mankind - up until Abraham comes into the picture. From then on, the Bible is STRICTLY a Jewish story of the Hebrews and their history.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2018
It's not the "religion" that people "hate" -
It's the arrogance, lack of hubris and open-mindedness that we've seen Christians and Creationists imbue in their comments. It's like they've come in looking to start an argument.
Less combativeness and a little humility might make things a little easier for you all...
or not...
says Whyde

Did you forget that IGNORE button over there >>>>>?

The vast majority are Religionists, not Creationists. Again, I will have to tell you that religions began long after the creation of man, the creation of other life, and the creation of the Universe.
Do try to remember this time.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2018
You do realise, don't you, that by making such statements in favour of religion, even in a broader sense, that you may make enemies in this forum - those who are haters of religions and the Creator?
There is much hate toward Christianity, even Jews, but I have yet to see/read any hatred toward the murderous Muslims who are streaming into Europe and the UK, bringing their religious beliefs into these nations and threatening to take over and convert them or kill them.
I am certain that these Muslims will accomplish their goals. It will be fun to watch how it happens.

I don't think I've ever seen a Muslim proselytize in a commentary on Physorg before.
When they do, I'm sure they'll see their own fair bit of derision...
says Whyde

Do you REALLY think that one day a Muslim will come in to physorg to proselytise for converts to his religion? That's a new one on me, as I did not suggest such a thing - or ever even thought it could happen. Unless they like science.
Phyllis Harmonic
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2018
The Creator left it to man to write, and for Angels to guide them in that writing.

Angels guide my writing too, and told me you're an utter dork. I have to leave now, I have supernatural mechanics working on my Vimana and it's ready to pick up, I'm flying to Heaven in the morning for breakfast with Elvis then picking up my grandkids back here on Earth after school.

You guys are too funny!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2018
The Creator left it to man to write, and for Angels to guide them in that writing.

Angels guide my writing too, and told me you're an utter dork. I have to leave now, I have supernatural mechanics working on my Vimana and it's ready to pick up, I'm flying to Heaven in the morning for breakfast with Elvis then picking up my grandkids back here on Earth after school.

You guys are too funny!
says PhyllisH

LOL That's funny too. We will be sure to withdraw all protection from your grandkids since you may have infected them already with your "funny". LOL
Phyllis Harmonic
4 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2018
LOL That's funny too. We will be sure to withdraw all protection from your grandkids since you may have infected them already with your "funny". LOL


¯\(°_o)/¯
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2018
Do you REALLY think that one day a Muslim will come in to physorg to proselytise for converts to his religion? That's a new one on me, as I did not suggest such a thing - or ever even thought it could happen. Unless they like science.


Christians/creationists coming in here don't seem to have that roadblock...

¯\(°_o)/¯ - You're gonna have to 'splain that one to me, Phyllis...
Ojorf
3 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2018
Focus your pareidolia Gyre!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2018
@eggy-on-da-face
We will be sure to withdraw all protection from your grandkids
so, now you're taking to threatening children because you dislike someone?

I suggest you make good on your threat to me first and skip the cowardice like threatening children
Ojorf
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2018
The vast majority are Religionists, not Creationists. Again, I will have to tell you that religions began long after the creation of man, the creation of other life, and the creation of the Universe.
Do try to remember this time.


And do try to remember that what you wrote has no basis in reality.
The "creation" you refer to is a fictitious concept not present in the real world.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2018
Focus your pareidolia Gyre!

Focused. Just, on what I'm not sure...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2018
LOL That's funny too. We will be sure to withdraw all protection from your grandkids since you may have infected them already with your "funny". LOL


¯\(°_o)/¯

Focussing.... Looks like a WTF shrug.....
Ojorf
4 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2018
Focus your pareidolia Gyre!

Focused. Just, on what I'm not sure...


The all I can say is...

¯\(°_o)/¯
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2018
God Himself did not "write" the Bible, as SpookyOtto seems to claim. The Creator left it to man to write, and for Angels to guide them in that writing
In addition to many colorful personas (pirouette, russkiye, obamasocks, pussycat eyes, etc), pussytard enjoys rewriting the bible to suit her predelictions.

"16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2tim3

-Of course all xians do this, even the most demented and dimwitted of them. Its a personal god after all.

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.