NASA study reproduces origins of life on ocean floor

originally posted by: stosh64

originally posted by: gallop

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: 727Sky

These people have no idea how the first cough..."simple"...cough cell came into being.
Mathematically there is essentially 0% chance of it happening on accident.
When pressed, Dawkins agrees.

I have to laugh when anyone says that first "simple" cell.

IMHO the only question is, who or what created life?

So, what you're saying is our current math is inadequate to describe everything.

Sounds legit. We should test more, before going with a supernatural thing that just exists eternally, is omnipotent, calls us his children, yet lets us die in the order of lesser, godless creatures.

So by stating that I believe someone or some thing created first life on earth you are provoked to go off on a little rant about your issues with a Deity of religious belief?
Maybe seek a therapist to work on that issue.

Then write Dawkins and inform him how ignorant he is to consider that possibility.

I don't have imaginary friends, not the one who needs a therapist.. or a priest.



It's also possible a long extinct pink unicorn created the universe when someone rubbed it's horn.. but let's not go there.

a reply to: 727Sky



Very interesting thanks!

Made me want to re-install that PC game Spore and play it again. Evolving a species from cellular, to multicellular, to sentietnt life

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Have them get back to me when the actually create life rather than just a hot, pressurized container of goo.

Get back to me when ID is more than idle speculation and denial of science. At least scientists are WORKING on it, while creationists just lie repeatedly and deny everything.

My favorite theory is entirely scientific. It suggests that there are essentially wormholes that can get big enough (but not too big) to suck in a tough bacteria and send it anywhere in space and time, including back to a primordial Earth, where it will eventually evolve and be sent back in time through a tiny wormhole.

It's a time loop. No need for a deity. We exist because we've always existed. The universe only exists because there is life in it to experience it.

Anyone else upset that part of NASA's 53,000,000$/day budget is spent trying to prove we're descended from hydrothermal sludge? Look at Chinese, Greek, Hebrew, Egyptian or Sumerian history, they all can trace humankind's lineage back to the beginning and they say humans are created by a transcendent being. Scientists have been trying to prove abiogenesis and evolution for over 100 years now and there is no evidence that life can come from non-life, or that an organism can change into another organisms - i.e. fruit flies remain fruit flies, mice remain mice, despite how hard they have tried to evolve these lab subjects.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Have them get back to me when the actually create life rather than just a hot, pressurized container of goo.

Get back to me when ID is more than idle speculation and denial of science. At least scientists are WORKING on it, while creationists just lie repeatedly and deny everything.

Get back to me when you get some real scientific evidence outside of assumption and belief
My faith is not strong enough to be an evolutionist

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: GreenGunther

Why do you hate science Gunther, some people are just asking that real science be applied and comments held accountable
Can you show me the real science and then I will understand your position

Don't believe in God, fine but don't think I have to believe in your faith because you have wrapped it in a pseudo science

The thread, title, statement disagree with science not religion

Show me how this experiment represented what was "deep in the ocean", show me what was deep in the ocean millions of years ago, what proof is there

You are brainwashed into a pseudo science fantasy
Maybe it was pan spermia, clay beds or tide poolst and nothing to do with the ocean, show me some science it was the ocean, show me empirical evidence, it's assumption not a reproduction of anything

The problem is that you’re assuming this aritcle is the ‘endgame’.
Nobody said this is hard evidence.
All this is, is evidence supporting a possibility.

But atleast they’re trying and will happily admit they don’t have all the answers, just like me.

a reply to: GreenGunther

No, I asked for evidence that scientists have proof they have made " reproduced origins of life on the ocean floor"
Clearly it's not the endgame, it seems a guess at very best "origins" and in the op they offered pan spermia, water holes, clay blah blah, go read the op and my reply
Please understand my issue, scientific evidence that scientists have reproduced something millions of years old and how they know they have it right, where is the evidence?

They are lying and they have no answers, that they won't admit.

Where did life come from?
"Well, we have reproduced the ocean floor millions of years ago, maybe, we thing at a guess we have, but we don't know what the ocean floor was really like because we were not really there so here is a guess "
Trying? Trying what exactly, fishing for fools on the ocean floor

originally posted by: cooperton
Anyone else upset that part of NASA's 53,000,000$/day budget is spent trying to prove we're descended from hydrothermal sludge?

Is anyone else bothered that you obviously didn't read the article and jumped to biased conclusions? Again?

Had you read it you would know that wasn't the point of the experiment. At all. It wasn't about proving abiogenesis. It was about looking at possibilities for origins of life to be applied to exobiology to get.s.bettwr understanding of what chemical signatures to look for both in our own solar system and exoplanets in other systems.

Look at Chinese, Greek, Hebrew, Egyptian or Sumerian history, they all can trace humankind's lineage back to the beginning and they say humans are created by a transcendent being.

It's interesting to see a proponent of biblical/scriptural literalism using pagan mythology to prop up their lack of understanding because Horus, Zeus or Odin are more palatable than hard science.

That's some serious mental gymnastics to reconcile such contradictory mythos with your own beliefs.

Scientists have been trying to prove abiogenesis and evolution for over 100 years now

No, once again you make up facts to suit your argument and provide no.citations to support your claims

and there is no evidence that life can come from non-life

Abiogenesis isn't about life forming from noon life no matter how often you repeat the claim. It's about how.chemical precursors to life could form the organic material that already existed naturally. And the self assembly of these molecules has.been demonstrated multiple times.by different teams from several nations. Nobody is claiming.to have proven abiogenesis. They're not even claiming that theres enough data to take abiogenesis from hypothesis to Theory. You're getting bent out of shape over an article that you.either didn't read or didn't understand.


or that an organism can change into another organisms - i.e. fruit flies remain fruit flies, mice remain mice, despite how hard they have tried to evolve these lab subjects.



Except that the other lines of repeatable evidence like genetics and comparative anatomy tell a.very different story. Evolution is about far more than one organism changing into another. Do you really not understand any of the science or are you purposely posting false or misleading thoughts, devoid of supporting data. Because your personal, unsupported feelings on the topic don't count as evidence.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: GreenGunther

No, I asked for evidence that scientists have proof they have made " reproduced origins of life on the ocean floor"
Clearly it's not the endgame, it seems a guess at very best "origins" and in the op they offered pan spermia, water holes, clay blah blah, go read the op and my reply
Please understand my issue, scientific evidence that scientists have reproduced something millions of years old and how they know they have it right, where is the evidence?

They are lying and they have no answers, that they won't admit.

Where did life come from?
"Well, we have reproduced the ocean floor millions of years ago, maybe, we thing at a guess we have, but we don't know what the ocean floor was really like because we were not really there so here is a guess "
Trying? Trying what exactly, fishing for fools on the ocean floor

Well no? It’s a case of reproducing conditions at which amino acids naturally form.
Primordial ooze 101, except this isn’t taking place in a geyser like the classic theory.
It just seems you’re mind is made up, science is a conspiracy, religion is the truth and no one can change your mind.
Indoctrination 101

a reply to: GreenGunther

Well no...
Nobody has any idea what the conditions of the ocean floor were like millions of years ago, it’s a bloody guess at the very best, a lie
It’s not science

Can you show me any evidence that it’s right
If you can’t it’s assumption and faith

Pseudo science is not science, what’s wrong with you
Why do you hate science, why do you want to corrupt it with faith

Show me the empirical evidence that the experiment has any proof that the ocean floor was like that millions of years ago
For all we know the earth was a dead planet like mars back then.
Prove otherwise

originally posted by: 727Sky
There have been many theories about where life began on earth. Everything from Panspermia, clay beds, tide pools, and the latest theory has been maybe the hydrothermal vent systems at the bottom of our oceans is where the seeds of life began

Barge and Flores used ingredients commonly found in early Earth's ocean in their experiments. They combined water, minerals and the "precursor" molecules pyruvate and ammonia, which are needed to start the formation of amino acids. They tested their hypothesis by heating the solution to 158 degrees Fahrenheit (70 degrees Celsius)—the same temperature found near a hydrothermal vent—and adjusting the pH to mimic the alkaline environment. They also removed the oxygen from the mixture because, unlike today, early Earth had very little oxygen in its ocean. The team additionally used the mineral iron hydroxide, or "green rust," which was abundant on early Earth.

phys.org...

I got a more poetic and mythic slant to the start of life here on terra firma



Father SKY & Mother EARTH



the land and seas were inhospitable to life in the first billion or so years... so the Petri Dish was the Clouds

which rained down all over the Land & Sea at different places/different times/ for hundreds of millions of years ....

Until Early single cell stuff came about by luck or happenstance at various locations with a variety of successes....

only the ATCG DNA type of life finished the Gauntlet of tests of survivability and flourished in the Seas/Ocean world -> until only land was the last frontier for further colonization by Indigenous Organic Life

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Have them get back to me when the actually create life rather than just a hot, pressurized container of goo.

Get back to me when ID is more than idle speculation and denial of science. At least scientists are WORKING on it, while creationists just lie repeatedly and deny everything.

My favorite theory is entirely scientific. It suggests that there are essentially wormholes that can get big enough (but not too big) to suck in a tough bacteria and send it anywhere in space and time, including back to a primordial Earth, where it will eventually evolve and be sent back in time through a tiny wormhole.

It's a time loop. No need for a deity. We exist because we've always existed. The universe only exists because there is life in it to experience it.

Interesting. Do you have scientific evidence to support such? What is the name of the theory?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Have them get back to me when the actually create life rather than just a hot, pressurized container of goo.

Get back to me when ID is more than idle speculation and denial of science. At least scientists are WORKING on it, while creationists just lie repeatedly and deny everything.

Get back to me when you get some real scientific evidence outside of assumption and belief
My faith is not strong enough to be an evolutionist

Unfortunately for you evolution and abiogenesis are both backed by testable evidence, while ID is backed by nothing. Deny it all you want, that's a fact. Abiogenesis is at least something. ID is pure pseudo-science.

originally posted by: cooperton
Look at Chinese, Greek, Hebrew, Egyptian or Sumerian history, they all can trace humankind's lineage back to the beginning and they say humans are created by a transcendent being.

Yeah, well, they said a lot of crazy crap that was later proven to be nonsense.

a reply to: Barcs

I am anticipating empirical evidence
No just kidding, you got nothing, not a thing
You got worthless words and a dumb argument based on faith
Smoke and mirrors, big talk, nothing but a faith

Even better, I have never offered any, none, nil scientific evidence for creation
Just like you have offered nothing but faith, nullascientifica, no science to prove evolution, not a drop, all ROT
I am not selling creation as a science
You are the ones lying evolution is science

If you have evidence, empirical, post it

Still the same old question and no reply

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: cooperton
Look at Chinese, Greek, Hebrew, Egyptian or Sumerian history, they all can trace humankind's lineage back to the beginning and they say humans are created by a transcendent being.

Yeah, well, they said a lot of crazy crap that was later proven to be nonsense.

Exactly where evolution is at the moment
Most science is accepting evolution is crazy crap being proven to be nonsense.
The more science learns the more it unlearns

originally posted by: peter vlar
It wasn't about proving abiogenesis. It was about looking at possibilities for origins of life

You contradict yourself immediately here. Abiogenesis is about the origin of life. So you say it wasn't about proving abiogenesis, and then describe their experiment as abiogenesis. Well played.

It's interesting to see a proponent of biblical/scriptural literalism using pagan mythology to prop up their lack of understanding because Horus, Zeus or Odin are more palatable than hard science.

That's some serious mental gymnastics to reconcile such contradictory mythos with your own beliefs.

No I am capable of looking at various culture's history from their lens. Take for example Egyptian history: Atum (phonetically pronounced "Adam") was the father of all humankind created by the Most High. He had a son Set (Seth), just like the Hebrew Adam. They deviate in perspective though, the Egyptians saw Seth as a chaotic wanderer who defied the advancement of civilization, whereas Hebrew history sees Seth as a nomadic herdsmen who followed God and defied the confusion involved with civilization. This validates the history because it is two different cultures viewing the same event from different perspectives.

So no, this doesn't invalidate my beliefs. It reinforces it. If you looked outside the state sanctioned box you would be able to see the broader picture

"Scientists have been trying to prove abiogenesis and evolution for over 100 years now"

No, once again you make up facts to suit your argument and provide no.citations to support your claims

You're underwhelming. Can't you do a google search on your own? I don't spoon feed you anymore because you just spit it out immediately. Dr William Dallinger, for example, attempted to prove evolution with a microbial line exposed to a gradual increase in temperature back in 1880. So yes, they've been trying for over 100 years now.

Abiogenesis isn't about life forming from noon life no matter how often you repeat the claim.

Well again, you're disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing with me. Abiogenesis is about life forming from non-living matter:

Abiogenesis definition: "the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances."



Evolution is about far more than one organism changing into another.

No that pretty much sums up evolution. If it cannot be proven that an organism can change into another organism then evolution cannot be proven either. Simple as that. But as usual, you'll complicate it to avoid the obvious answer.

a reply to: Raggedyman

We've been down this road a thousand times. I'll post evidence. You will ignore it and claim it doesn't count without even reading it.

originally posted by: gallop

I used to watch a show called The Future Is Wild, which was a thought provoking series on how the world will evolve in millions of years, based on evidence of how it got to where it is now.

When I'd describe it to people, I'd often be met with "How do they know, they can't. Sound rubbish."

Yet, it is postulation and the mind that wants to know... I don't see anything wrong with that, per se. It's when it becomes statement, that I do.






im afraid the site dumped me into a dfferent thread....


i erased my post... irrelevent ! to this thread