Disproving atheists in 82 seconds
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
Let's look at the original quote again:
"Amphiphiles are oily compounds containing a hydrophilic head on one or both ends of a hydrophobic molecule. Some amphiphiles have the tendency to spontaneously form membranes in water. A spherically closed membrane contains water and is a hypothetical precursor to the modern cell membrane. If a protein would increase the integrity of its parent bubble, that bubble had an advantage, and was placed at the top of the natural selection waiting list. "
Here they're postulating amphiphile bubbles becoming stabilized by incorporating proteins. Except that in amphiphile world, where there are not yet functioning cells, there are no proteins to incorporate. There has to be a lot of machinery in place to produce proteins. So now you have to imagine some sort of life predecessor starting off in relatively unstable, protein free amphiphile bubbles. What does it reproduce with? I haven't seen a credible lab experiment showing how to make RNA in conditions that could plausibly have existed on the early earth. And DNA is harder. Theorists of life's origins have replaced the God-of-a-big-gap with a God-of-many-somewhat-smaller-gaps. But the gaps are still there. If you think we have a theory that explains how life started you are simply wrong.
Are you joking? Stu stated it exactly right. It's truly stunning that you would see it as wrong.
"With regard to the concatenation of nucleotides to oligonucleotides there is progress as well. The polymerization of chemically-activated RNA monomers can take place on the mineral surfaces of montmorillonite clay, generating polymer chains of up to 50-mers (Huang and Ferris 2006). The pyrimidine ribonucleotide monomers from the new synthesis (Powner et al. 2009) are also activated (they contain cyclic phosphate), which may allow for similar polymerization.
The group of David Deamer has shown that the synthesis of RNA-like polymers can even occur from non-activated mononucleotides within phospholipids vesicles, due to the chemical potential of fluctuating anhydrous and hydrated conditions, with heat providing activation energy during rehydration (Rajamani et al. 2008). Such conditions could have existed around hot springs on the prebiotic Earth. The lipids also provide a structurally organizing microenvironment that imposes order on mononucleotides. In this experimental setup, oligomers of up to 100 nucleotides can be formed non-enzymatically. It remains to be seen if prebiotically plausible fatty acid vesicles could have the same effect on RNA synthesis (with this a self-replicating RNA molecule would also have been pre-packaged for further evolution, cf. below). Effective polymerization of monomers that are activated might be aided by a structurally organizing microenvironment within vesicles as well."
This link has a daunting and thorough review of the science.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#minerals
Stu - says this..
It's in no way valid criticism of science to insert the need for a miracle when there's no need.
Surely that's what "God did it" is supposed to be all about isn't it? Miracles. They go where one doesn't want to understand or discover what's really going on.
--
Reality...
The rocket scientist in charge of the project says this...
"We are interested in understanding what was on the early Earth when life got started," Elsila told New Scientist. "We don't know how life got started ... but this adds to our knowledge of the ingredient pool."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first-amino-acid-on-a-comet.html
If you think for just one moment you will have to realize that whoever wrote the above is writing utter nonsense.
The believer has little if any interest in the question "who created God", because when they enter a religious frame of mind they have entered a spiritual world based on blind faith. Their faith is not subject to reason.
The atheist, on the other hand, has no interest in the question "who created God", because they are already certain of the answer. They know already that "God" was created in the minds of men -- meaning mankind, by the way, not the male species.
Nor does the atheist have to solve the riddle of "how did something come from nothing?" This question has nothing to do with the belief that there is no God. The atheist understands that incomplete knowledge does not require the existence of a "God", nor is it any evidence in favor of such existence.
Furthermore, many better educated atheists understand that matter and energy are inter-convertible-- their atheism does not require this understanding, however. Thus these enlightened atheists are perfectly comfortable with energy having no mass, being intangible, and satisfying the criterion of "nothingness". They understand that energy is the source of tangible matter, and this very satisfactorily explains for them where "somethingness" comes from. These atheists have no interest in the ridiculous --to them-- question of "how [does] something come from nothing?".
Atheists, in general, are prisoners of their education, whereas believers in God are free of this constraint.
My response to Urey and Millers experiment, when I first heard of it, was "duh, why wouldn't you get amino acids under those conditions?". I think their experiment, while not unimportant, has been given too much emphasis, whereas Orgel's work, much of it anyway, was truly ingenious -- from my point of view anyway. There is nothing magical at all about the Urey-Miller experiment. A very easy experiment to do, but the work-up of the reaction mixture required very competent hands, and was not easy --especially in the early 1950's when it was done.
I'm sorry you failed to understand the point.
Your red herring distraction about matter/energy are immaterial: for all you have done is changed the question to "how did energy come from no energy?"
So I'll spell it out to you.
Both depend as equally as the other on some (quite potentially unfathomable at least in the scientific sense ) miracle.
That's why we call it "BELIEF"
If either were scientifically provable it wouldn't be dependent upon personal opinions.