It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Obviously there is a point at which molecular arrangements of proteins give rise to life, animating the inanimate.
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Obviously there is a point at which molecular arrangements of proteins give rise to life, animating the inanimate.
Oh really?
Prove it. Show me. Show all of us.
Arrange inanimate proteins and make life for us.
Here, let me help you out. I'll open up the offer to all scientists in the world. Surely, with their combined intellect, super computers, etc., that one of them can create life, right?
Has anyone ever animated the inanimate? Ever?
If it's as simple as that don't you think that some scientist would have done it already then?
This has to be the least thought out statement you have ever made.
I'm sure you meant to include, among many other variables, energy fields in to your statement but you did not.
Can you imagine pieces of coal or rock arranging together to form something that comes to life?
Absurd, right?
Now, just replace coal or rock with your protein and ask the same question.
Take a turtle vs protein; one is animate, the other is inanimate. Yet we see that both are made up of the same sub-atomic particles.
What are proteins made of? Amino Acids, which are composed of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and sometimes sulfur.
So please prove your statement of how these amino acids can be arranged to animate the inanimated.
We are all waiting.
Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Your analogy is patently absurd.
'Wet' is merely a description of a sensation, life is a great deal more than that.
The fundamental forces of physics can not account for conciousness and nothing short of a miraculous or magical revision of those laws could do so.
If you believe the universe can be explained adequately by Physics, then I would suggest you haven't understood its implications.
You can explain atoms and molecules forming and grouping together via the interactions of the fundamental forces (primarily electromagnetism) but there is clearly a leap to the formation of the simplest life forms. Life is clearly not the result of 'fundamental' forces.
Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Everything in the universe is supposed to be ultimately governed by the fundamental forces. Chemistry and Bilology are not exempt, they are both fields of science that should be explicable via the laws of physics.
Anybody that has understood the universe as described by the academic subject that is Physics,
and has had a spiritual experience
knows that it's not only missed something out - it's missed the most essential aspect of our existance out.
I doubt many 'spiritualists' believe that matter is required or the reason for our being.
Can you not see the blatant inadequacy of your description?
'Life is just a collection of self-replicating molecules' - 'Just'? - 'Self-replicating'? How does something copy itself?
With all our intelligence we can't copy ourselves, but inanimate particles can?
Originally posted by sykickvision
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
Here's your answer.
www.talkorigins.org...
It has big words in it, and it's not a movie - there are a few picture, and it will take more than 30 seconds to read & comprehend what's being stated. But read...please read before replying. Do the thread that favor.
The mistaken assumption is that only ONE chemical reaction at a time is taking place, whereas it could potentially number into the thousands or tens of thousands - per second - per number of atoms/molecules in the entire primordial ocean.
When you figure in more correct math, and get the facts straight about expected outcomes, it makes it about as improbable as winning $10 on a scratch off lottery ticket.
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
"Obviously there is a point at which molecular arrangements of proteins give rise to life, animating the inanimate."
I read your lies, damned lies article. I watched the pretty looking moving picture video, all six minutes sixteen seconds of it.
"Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these 'are decidedly not random'." - lies article.
"The video explains current ideas as to how life 'might' have originated on Earth." - video.
Neither of these sources show an obvious "point at which molecular arrangements of proteins give rise to life, animating the inanimate."
What they did show me was that science is working on it and that how it "might" have occurred.
But it is neither obvious nor proven.
So please offer up some actual scientific proof on how proteins give rise to life.
Let me save you and the others the time, you can not.
So please do not say false, misleading points that are meant to deceive the reader.
Science may in fact prove life developed this way or science may in fact prove it has not.
But right now, as of today, this second, this moment, science has not shown how proteins have given rise to life. Period.
Argue until you're blue in the face or red from embarrassment, but science has not shown how proteins have given rise to life. Period.
So the original member being quoted should just admit he was wrong and move on.
We are all human here and make mistakes. He made one. No biggie. Admit it and move on.
p.s. Does this quote from your lies article: "Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these 'are decidedly not random'."
Admit that "the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these 'are decidedly not random."? - therefore - if they are not random - then they are deliberate - which shows us some sort of intelligence behind them? Just asking.
p.s.s. Maybe you should spend less time on talking down to someone and more time on answering the question I asked. Which was: Has anyone ever animated the inanimate? Ever?
Here's the members response: "Just because humans can't do it doesn't mean it can't happen naturally."
I didn't ask if nature does it, I asked if "ANYONE" has ever done it - ever.
Wow- and you talk down to me? Maybe you need to speak slower to this fella.