Protocell Research: on the Verge of. . . a Dead End

[markburnash271]

The staggering amount of time involved with ambiogenesis and evolution presents many opportunites for a great many IFS to come together.

[1PintLasher]

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF. Life had 3 billion years of ifs before it finally landed on a cell design that worked and today the cells design is even better. Deal with it you bible thumping, bullshit believing fuck up.

[bioman123]

What has given us more information on life... science or the bible? I will stick with what works. That is science.

[dkt80]

Is this video 33 seconds long, or is my Youtube just broken? At any rate, nothing interesting or new is said in those 33 seconds.

[EmeraldView]

Poor kut77less, is your precious "god" dying??

Yes, I think he is. So sad. If you're lucky though you will croak before having to witness his complete demise.

[magick205]

Considering that almost 2 billion years passed from the creation of the planet before the first confirmed fossil life (1.9 billion year old stromatolites in the Mich Gunflint formation), there is a very high probabilty that this could've occurred more than once. The whole point of the HHMI work is to show possible precursor steps to a living cell. Given that we have produced entirely artificial chromosomes, can making a "living" proto-cell be far off?

[magick205]

Sorry. Need to correct the date on stromatolite fossils: The Steep Rock formation is an estimated 3 billion years old. Metazoic life has been here only about 610-650 million years. Lots of room for growth and change there.

[kut77less]

Your dating methods all have assumptions

[magick205]

And your source material does not? The fact is that using different and independent radiometric techniques, all give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions. By combining the various techniques, the margin and width of  error is very substanially reduced.

[kut77less]

Actually during the flood there was accelerated nuclear decay which affect all dating methods.

[magick205]

And just how might the weak force be affected by water, pray tell? In any event, referring to a flood which was a local event rather than global event leaving 8 surivivors is nonsensical. Population studies show this impossible. Contempory accounts of armies in the millions show this assumption to be false.

[kut77less]

After the flood people lived longer and thus they produced more offspring.

Hey you believe we all came from a soup  so my believe is more reasonable

[magick205]

You still didn't answer my question how ANY amout of water can affect the weak force. And you still haven't adequetly addressed the population issue. But, hey, can say I'm suprised.

[kut77less]

There is evidence for accelerated nuclear decay if you are looking for that. Look up zircons and helium diffusion

For the population argument this shows that the earth is young because if evolution is true there should be more poeple on earth.

here is an very short article addersing your claim

tinyurl(dot)com/6bwcc2

[magick205]

Yeah. I've seen it before. And it has since been disproven. Such a change in the strength of the weak force would've produced enough heat to melt the surface many times over. The source I'm quoting for population growth is Herodotus and his reporting of Xeres's army of 2 million plus in 481 BCE. Most population models based on the traditional date of the flood, give a world population of about 700 people at that time.

[kut77less]

My point is that it is possible that 8 people produce the population we have in just 4400 thousand years. It is also a problem for evolutionist. I don't know much about population growth so those articles are my sources

[WeedGreenPowerRanger]

"My point is that it is possible that 8 people produce the population we have in just 4400 thousand years."

Yes, if humans were to breed like bacteria.

"It is also a problem for evolutionist."

Problem is a gross overstatement. We just have to correct you.

"I don't know much about population growth so those articles are my sources"

Well, then you should know that those figures you're looking at are based on a constant steady rate of growth, and dont take population loss (death) into account.

[0000Austin]

thats if those people had technology. before the industial revolution population growth was much slower.

[sum1unxpected]

how many kids did Cain and Able have with their mother?

[WeedGreenPowerRanger]

"For the population argument this shows that the earth is young because if evolution is true there should be more poeple on earth."

Completely false. 1) These articles generally work off of a "Billions of years" template, 2) Population growth in these articles always shows a constant breeding template. Everyone has 3 kids, or something close. 3) The articles never account for the fact that there are natural disasters that kill lots of people, or that fact that people, you know... DIE.

[kut77less]

"The articles never account for the fact that there are natural disasters that kill lots of people, or that fact that people, you know... DIE."

Yes they do and after the flood people lived longer then they do right know

[WeedGreenPowerRanger]

"Yes they do and after the flood people lived longer then they do right know "

1) Thats a wild ass idea with no support.

2) The longer someone lives, the less functional their genitals become. If you want to argue that Adam could still get it up at age 600, then you're going to have to show evidence of Pre-Flood viagra.

3) No, they do not. The assume a constant rate of growth while ignoring things like environmental attrition, and the simple fact that people Die. Show me a study that Doesn't.

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

you're right, the human population was fairly stable; in a sort of equilibrium, before the industrial/medical revolution where it increased explosively. Creationists tend to conveniently take the gross pop. increase % of today rather than considering that the rate of increase varied drastically throughout history.

[kut77less]

Here is from the creation magazine

creationontheweb(dot)com/conte­nt/view/393

[V4Andy]

Do you know anyone who has observed this or created a lab experiment that produces this result? I'm sure there are hundreds of geologists and paleontologists who would be interested to know that a central tool to their study has been discredited which would be something they can't ignore.

It can't be hard either (at least for a trained scientist), just observe radioactive decay underwater

[kut77less]

"" proto-cell be far off? "

Yes and if you accept it as fact then you my friend have more faith then us Christians

[magick205]

No faith required here sir. Man will never fly. Never walk on the moon. And on and on. The question is, when man creates life from non-life, what will you do? Perhaps the point has come to leave things spiritual for spiritual, and science for science.

[kut77less]

"when man creates life from non-life, what will you do? "

This will never happen, but I would say it takes intelligence to create life

[magick205]

Just human intelligence. However I do agree with YouDontKnowMike regarding hubris. We could do some really horrific things with genetic engineering.

[kut77less]

"YouDontKnowMike regarding hubris. We could do some really horrific things with genetic engineering. "

I dont know what you are talking about sorry

[magick205]

Look a few posts back. We've been chewing up the bandwidth pretty good here! LOL

[mrkurt13]

"but I would say it takes intelligence to create life"

Except for that good ol' first intelligence. That can just exist. For no reason and with no purpose.

kut77less=Fail.

[YouDontKnowMike]

Bow down to the master fabricators: humans. The ambition to create everything; The hubris to ruin everything.

[DavidABird]

Natural selection would apply to anything that has heritable variation and replication. If a hypothetical chemical (or collection of same) was capable of self-replication, then any variation that would enhance the replication process will be selected for. The chemicals would not need to be pure.

Using the absence of scientific evidence to defend the existence of God is the so-called "God of the gaps." It's risky, since many "gaps" in the past have been since filled by scientific evidence.

[kut77less]

I only said that research so far shows that this idea is wrong