PrisonPlanet Forum
July 28, 2014, 06:32:49 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Scientists say they discovered molecule that started all life on Earth!  (Read 45359 times)
hal 9000
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 861



« on: May 15, 2009, 03:47:39 AM »

Personally, I think these people are full of shit. It is of utmost importance to them that the existence of a creator be disproved. Their religion is science and they cherish the notion that rational man can attain a measure of Godhood.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/space/5322903/Mystery-of-how-life-on-Earth-began-solved-by-British-scientists.html

[excerpt]

Researchers led by John Sutherland at Manchester University have demonstrated the mechanism that led to the first living, breathing creatures – a process attributed by generations of evolutionary theorists, including Charles Darwin, to an unexplained primordial soup.

The team has broken new ground by being able to synthesise two of the four building blocks of RNA, the self-replicating molecule that many scientist believe to be the most likely contender for the original molecule of life. Dr Sutherland believes that he has shown how it was possible to make all the building blocks of RNA from the simple chemicals that existed on Earth at the time.
Logged
Noel Degrassi
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 831


WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 15, 2009, 03:50:56 AM »

Which, IF they were to succeed (yeah, right) all they would prove is that it takes intelligence to create life.

Logged

The_lizard
Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


The Thread Killer


« Reply #2 on: May 15, 2009, 03:55:16 AM »

Their religion is biology, there is a big difference between biologist and physicists. Evolution is taught in schools all over the world as fact but the fact is evolution and creation can co-exist.
Logged
Dok
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,713



WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 15, 2009, 03:57:20 AM »

what happens when you add o2 to the mix?
Logged

HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship Wink
Scootle
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,233



« Reply #4 on: May 15, 2009, 03:58:34 AM »

Still doesnt explain how unicellular creatures evolved other cells.
Logged

The truth will set you free
From global tyranny
Wake up American slobs
9/11 was an inside job
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OntBg2qwk_M&fmt=35

Century of Manipulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mujq-C1UAw0

... Here's Tom with the weather!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CCIcjIngLA
Noel Degrassi
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 831


WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 15, 2009, 04:07:03 AM »

what happens when you add o2 to the mix?

Things will break down faster than they can build up, if that's what you're asking. Oxidation's a bitch.

Logged

Noel Degrassi
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 831


WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 15, 2009, 04:46:43 AM »

Still doesnt explain how unicellular creatures evolved other cells.

Wanna see what I see as typical? I just came across this but it just made me chuckle with a sad sigh attached:

http://www.qassim-afzal.com/images/xData/site/Subspace/xLife.html

Here's just the first two sections (bold phrases are my smart-ass remarks)


Life in the Universe

| Posted on 1st of May, 2007 |


I. The Big Bang

Out of nowhere (just, outta frickin' nowhere, huh?), a weird kind of super-dense atomic (can't know that) or subatomic structure (can't know that) banged out towards all directions (then why are so many things going different directions and colliding as well?) much faster than the speed of light (can't know that either), creating the time & space (just like that?) and the basis for our existing Universe some 14 billion years ago (where the f**k do they come up with these numbers??), co-incidentally. All that started to happen just in the first few extremely small fractions of a second after the bang (again, you CAN'T know any of this). Since then the universe is expanding and accelerating (actually expanding and decelerating, what they hell would cause it to speed up?....2nd Law of Thermodynamics, dumbasses). Then by the time the energy and the plasma (electrically charged gas) began to condense into dust and other gases later on forming first galaxies and stars (REEEEAAAALLLY? Dust formed stars and galaxies. Okay, playtime's over kids...holy crap). Some hundreds of millions of years (that "millions" thing again....I'm still trying to grasp 6000 years, and that's documented) later some of the old stars could not hold themselves and exploded. They sprayed their heavier elements out into the space. That debris incorporated into the large dust and gas clouds which create the new stars under gravitation forces (lielielielielie...so all you need is dust and gravity to create stars?.....bighonkin'bullshit). Our sun was made this way (WHAT??!!) and planets were made in the rotating disk of gas and dust around it (explains that big, rotating, metal core generator we have....not).

II. The Universal Evolution of Life
Later, when the Universe had generated enough elements thru star explosions and other interactions (umm.....First Law of Thermodynamics, dumbasses), something strange happened at various places in the Universe (okay, where?). Life began to develop on the planets, comets, asteroids and other exotic places just because those places had the ‘right ingredients and conditions’ to support it. (I don't even know how to comment on this retardation).

Our planet Earth was no exception. Once Earth developed the suitable conditions to support the Life (Earth is suitable for CREATED life, not CREATING life, the difference is all the difference), it created single-celled bacteria or bacteria-like creatures which animated automatically and engaged in reproduction (Why would you need to engage in reproduction when you can basically create yourself out of nothing? See first paragraph as to how it all "just happened" to come from nothing). Within next billions of years (do I have to say it?), the basic form of life developed into complex animals (yeah, that makes PERFECT sense). The living things, which could run, swim, or fly. Human beings are the later form of those complex animals especially apes (Does anyone REALLY buy into this horsepuckey?).

“All known life on Earth is based on Carbon (not for long Sparky). Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus are elements that exist in all organisms on Earth” (Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia). In a famous (more like infamous) Yuri-Miller Experiment a few decades earlier, the Earth’s early environment was simulated (improperly, no oxygen, "reduced atmosphere", what-ever) in the laboratory to show that the seeds of life (explain where the soul is created, consciousness and such) were essentially the amino acids and these were created as theorized (no, two of twenty were). This experiment was reported successful and confirmed the story mentioned above (was actually considered a huge failure and proved nothing).

This is the story of the Universe and the Life, widely accepted as a standard theory worldwide (Yes, we know). Standing on Earth, everything is fine and supporting the whole idea thru brief observation. Within the atmospheric boundaries of Earth and general biology, physics and chemistry, the theory is perfect and valid. (Just f**kin' shoot me.)
 
By the way, if it's "survival of the fittest", why are you people always trying to protect endangered animals? By this goofy-ass evolution religion, you are interfering with that dying animal turning into a super version of itself, or something else! Stupidstupidstupidstupidstupid.

Logged

Dok
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,713



WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 15, 2009, 05:05:24 AM »

Things will break down faster than they can build up, if that's what you're asking. Oxidation's a bitch.



you win a prize.  Grin

Logged

HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship Wink
RickT
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,136


« Reply #8 on: May 15, 2009, 05:35:32 AM »

Thread on this topic here:

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=105587.msg637182#msg637182
Logged

"What a bunch of garbage, Liberal, Democratic, Conservative, Republican, it's all there to control you, two sides of the same coin! Two management teams, bidding for control of the CEO job of Slavery Incorporated!" Alex
David Rothscum
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,683


« Reply #9 on: May 15, 2009, 05:52:28 AM »

Things will break down faster than they can build up, if that's what you're asking. Oxidation's a bitch.


Well, thank God there was no Oxygen on the planet when the earliest life forms emerged. Wink

http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/tdc02.sci.ess.earthsys.stetteroxy/
The rock record, along with the fossil evidence and sediment it contains, holds many clues about the environmental conditions under which the earliest life forms evolved. For example, we now know that oxygen production began in the oceans at least 2.5 billion years ago and reached present-day levels in the atmosphere just 400 million years ago.

Interestingly, oxygen was toxic to the Earth's earliest organisms, which had evolved to survive in oxygen-free environments. As oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere, these anaerobes sought shelter in locations where oxygen did not exist. Today, anaerobic organisms can still be found, but only in extreme environments such as undersea vents and geothermal formations, under conditions that would be deadly to most other life forms.

Stromatolites, mounded colonies of aquatic cyanobacteria, provide the earliest fossil evidence of cellular life, approximately 3.5 billion years old. Because modern cyanobacteria generate oxygen through photosynthesis, it is believed that stromatolites may have played a significant role in creating our modern atmosphere.

Iron ore deposits also provide information on the history of oxygen on Earth. The trillions of tons of iron ore on Earth tell us that ancient oceans contained a large supply of iron. Dissolved iron falls out of solution when it encounters oxygen, and the bright-orange products of this chemical reaction -- rust particles -- settle on the ocean floor. Rust-colored sedimentary layers originally deposited on the ocean floor provide strong geological evidence that oxygen was being produced in the oceans at least 2.5 billion years ago.

As stromatolite colonies multiplied, dissolved oxygen in the ocean eventually combined with all the available iron supply in the oceans, and free oxygen began to bubble out of the ocean and collect in the atmosphere. The presence of atmospheric oxygen is indicated by distinctive rock layers about 2 billion years old, from a time when most of the planet's exposed surface actually oxidized and rusted.

A third line of evidence of the development of atmospheric oxygen is the emergence of terrestrial life. Terrestrial life requires a protective layer of ozone in the atmosphere to shield it from ultraviolet radiation. Scientists believe that the appearance of land plants, for which we have evidence 480 million years old, indicates that there was sufficient atmospheric oxygen at that time to create a protective ozone layer.

To learn more about bacteria that live in extreme conditions and may provide clues to the beginning of life on Earth, check out Deep Sea Vents and Life's Origins.

To learn about the similarities cave-dwelling microbes share with Earth's earliest living things, and how they may influence the debate about whether life can exist elsewhere in the universe, check out Caves: Extreme Conditions for Life.
Logged
David Rothscum
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,683


« Reply #10 on: May 15, 2009, 06:00:31 AM »

Still doesnt explain how unicellular creatures evolved other cells.
Oh, this is an interesting subject. We have actually witnessed the evolution of unicellular lifeforms into multicellular lifeforms. Let me show it to you:


http://www.springerlink.com/content/q239365007h43465/
Abstract  Predation was a powerful selective force promoting increased morphological complexity in a unicellular prey held in constant environmental conditions. The green alga, Chlorella vulgaris, is a well-studied eukaryote, which has retained its normal unicellular form in cultures in our laboratories for thousands of generations. For the experiments reported here, steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris continuous cultures were inoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, a phagotrophic flagellated protist (‘flagellate’). Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 10–20 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium.

Makes sense doesn't it? The cells are just living on their own, until a predator pops up. The cells that stay together are protected, and the predator doesn't go after them.
Logged
Dok
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,713



WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 15, 2009, 06:03:59 AM »

Well, thank God there was no Oxygen on the planet when the earliest life forms emerged. Wink

http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/tdc02.sci.ess.earthsys.stetteroxy/
The rock record, along with the fossil evidence and sediment it contains, holds many clues about the environmental conditions under which the earliest life forms evolved. For example, we now know that oxygen production began in the oceans at least 2.5 billion years ago and reached present-day levels in the atmosphere just 400 million years ago.

Interestingly, oxygen was toxic to the Earth's earliest organisms, which had evolved to survive in oxygen-free environments. As oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere, these anaerobes sought shelter in locations where oxygen did not exist. Today, anaerobic organisms can still be found, but only in extreme environments such as undersea vents and geothermal formations, under conditions that would be deadly to most other life forms.

Stromatolites, mounded colonies of aquatic cyanobacteria, provide the earliest fossil evidence of cellular life, approximately 3.5 billion years old. Because modern cyanobacteria generate oxygen through photosynthesis, it is believed that stromatolites may have played a significant role in creating our modern atmosphere.

Iron ore deposits also provide information on the history of oxygen on Earth. The trillions of tons of iron ore on Earth tell us that ancient oceans contained a large supply of iron. Dissolved iron falls out of solution when it encounters oxygen, and the bright-orange products of this chemical reaction -- rust particles -- settle on the ocean floor. Rust-colored sedimentary layers originally deposited on the ocean floor provide strong geological evidence that oxygen was being produced in the oceans at least 2.5 billion years ago.

As stromatolite colonies multiplied, dissolved oxygen in the ocean eventually combined with all the available iron supply in the oceans, and free oxygen began to bubble out of the ocean and collect in the atmosphere. The presence of atmospheric oxygen is indicated by distinctive rock layers about 2 billion years old, from a time when most of the planet's exposed surface actually oxidized and rusted.

A third line of evidence of the development of atmospheric oxygen is the emergence of terrestrial life. Terrestrial life requires a protective layer of ozone in the atmosphere to shield it from ultraviolet radiation. Scientists believe that the appearance of land plants, for which we have evidence 480 million years old, indicates that there was sufficient atmospheric oxygen at that time to create a protective ozone layer.

To learn more about bacteria that live in extreme conditions and may provide clues to the beginning of life on Earth, check out Deep Sea Vents and Life's Origins.

To learn about the similarities cave-dwelling microbes share with Earth's earliest living things, and how they may influence the debate about whether life can exist elsewhere in the universe, check out Caves: Extreme Conditions for Life.

Thank God none of this crap is true. You Fail again Dave.  Tongue

Origin of Life: the Early Atmosphere
Our current atmosphere consists primarily of oxygen (21%) and nitrogen (78%) and is called oxidizing because of chemical reactions produced by oxygen. For example, iron is oxidized to form iron oxide or rust.
The presence of oxygen in a hypothetical primordial atmosphere poses a difficult problem for notions of self-assembling molecules. If oxygen is present, there would be no amino acids, sugars, purines, etc. Amino acids and sugars react with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2) and water.

Because it is impossible for life to evolve with oxygen, evolutionists theorize an early atmosphere without oxygen. This departs from the usual evolutionary theorizing where a uniformistic view is held (i.e. where processes remain constant over vast stretches of time). In this case the present is NOT the key to the past.

Instead, they propose a "reducing" (called thus because of the chemical reactions) atmosphere which contains free hydrogen. Originally, they postulated an atmosphere consisting of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3), free hydrogen and water vapor. Newer schemes exclude ammonia and methane.

There is a problem if you consider the ozone (O3) layer which protects the earth from ultraviolet rays. Without this layer, organic molecules would be broken down and life would soon be eliminated. But if you have oxygen, it prevents life from starting. A "catch-22" situation (Denton 1985, 261-262):

Atmosphere with oxygen => No amino acids => No life possible!
Atmosphere without oxygen => No ozone => No life possible!
In must be noted at this point that the existence of a reducing atmosphere is theoretical and does not rely on physical evidence. To the contrary, there are geological evidences for the existence of an oxidizing atmosphere as far back as can be determined. Among these are: the precipitation of limestone (calcium carbonate) in great quantities, the oxidation of ferrous iron in early rocks (Gish 1972, 8 ) and the distribution of minerals in early sedimentary rocks (Gish 1984T).

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ol1.htm

Logged

HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship Wink
Lilly Bighorn
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 974



« Reply #12 on: May 15, 2009, 06:16:23 AM »

Atmosphere without oxygen => No ozone => No life possible!

i think this is a fallacy. as you point out, dok, in the reducing atmosphere hypothesis, the past was not like the present. certainly you or i or most advanced life forms could not exist on a planet with no protection from solar radiation. but that's not necessarily true on the level of rna.
Logged

Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."
David Rothscum
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,683


« Reply #13 on: May 15, 2009, 06:18:10 AM »

Thank God none of this crap is true. You Fail again Dave.  Tongue

Origin of Life: the Early Atmosphere
Our current atmosphere consists primarily of oxygen (21%) and nitrogen (78%) and is called oxidizing because of chemical reactions produced by oxygen. For example, iron is oxidized to form iron oxide or rust.
The presence of oxygen in a hypothetical primordial atmosphere poses a difficult problem for notions of self-assembling molecules. If oxygen is present, there would be no amino acids, sugars, purines, etc. Amino acids and sugars react with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2) and water.

Because it is impossible for life to evolve with oxygen, evolutionists theorize an early atmosphere without oxygen. This departs from the usual evolutionary theorizing where a uniformistic view is held (i.e. where processes remain constant over vast stretches of time). In this case the present is NOT the key to the past.

Instead, they propose a "reducing" (called thus because of the chemical reactions) atmosphere which contains free hydrogen. Originally, they postulated an atmosphere consisting of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3), free hydrogen and water vapor. Newer schemes exclude ammonia and methane.

There is a problem if you consider the ozone (O3) layer which protects the earth from ultraviolet rays. Without this layer, organic molecules would be broken down and life would soon be eliminated. But if you have oxygen, it prevents life from starting. A "catch-22" situation (Denton 1985, 261-262):

Atmosphere with oxygen => No amino acids => No life possible!
Atmosphere without oxygen => No ozone => No life possible!
In must be noted at this point that the existence of a reducing atmosphere is theoretical and does not rely on physical evidence. To the contrary, there are geological evidences for the existence of an oxidizing atmosphere as far back as can be determined. Among these are: the precipitation of limestone (calcium carbonate) in great quantities, the oxidation of ferrous iron in early rocks (Gish 1972, 8 ) and the distribution of minerals in early sedimentary rocks (Gish 1984T).

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ol1.htm


This contains so much errors I don't really know where do I start...
Well, let's start with the idea that without ozone there is no life possible because the lack of ozone would have broken down organic molecules. It's actually the exact opposite as studies have pointed out. UV light helped the generation of the building blocks of life:

Abstract
Background
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/3/12/abstract
A key event in the origin of life on this planet has been formation of self-replicating RNA-type molecules, which were complex enough to undergo a Darwinian-type evolution (origin of the "RNA world"). However, so far there has been no explanation of how the first RNA-like biopolymers could originate and survive on the primordial Earth.
Results

As condensation of sugar phosphates and nitrogenous bases is thermodynamically unfavorable, these compounds, if ever formed, should have undergone rapid hydrolysis. Thus, formation of oligonucleotide-like structures could have happened only if and when these structures had some selective advantage over simpler compounds. It is well known that nitrogenous bases are powerful quenchers of UV quanta and effectively protect the pentose-phosphate backbones of RNA and DNA from UV cleavage. To check if such a protection could play a role in abiogenic evolution on the primordial Earth (in the absence of the UV-protecting ozone layer), we simulated, by using Monte Carlo approach, the formation of the first oligonucleotides under continuous UV illumination. The simulations confirmed that UV irradiation could have worked as a selective factor leading to a relative enrichment of the system in longer sugar-phosphate polymers carrying nitrogenous bases as UV-protectors. Partial funneling of the UV energy into the condensation reactions could provide a further boost for the oligomerization.
Conclusion

These results suggest that accumulation of the first polynucleotides could be explained by their abiogenic selection as the most UV-resistant biopolymers.

Shining Light on Life's Origin
By: Leslie Mullen

RNA
A 3D structure of RNA.
Credit: SpaceDaily

Doctors urge us to wear sunscreen and try to stay out of the sun. The sun's ultraviolet (UV) rays damage our skin and are a leading cause of skin cancer.

UV light has been just as shunned in theories on the origin of life. The early Earth did not have an ozone layer, so UV radiation would have been 100 times today's levels. It is generally believed that the delicate molecules of life's beginning would have deteriorated under this light intensity.

Many scientists say that life's origin most likely occurred in places sheltered from UV light, such as the hydrothermal vents deep under the sea. But a new study, published in BioMed Central journal Evolutionary Biology, says rather than hinder the origin of life, UV rays helped and may even have been a necessary ingredient for life's formation.

Armen Mulkidjanian, with his colleagues from Osnabrück University, Germany and the National Institutes of Health, USA, used computer models to test RNA's ability to form from sugar, phosphates, and nitrogenous bases in the presence of high levels of UV light.

While the researchers acknowledge that UV can be damaging to RNA, they discovered that some parts of the molecule act as a protective shield for other parts. The nitrogenous bases absorb and disperse UV radiation, protecting the RNA's pentose-phosphate backbone.

hammerhead_ribozyme
This 3D hammerhead ribozyme structure (in red, green, and purple) is shown bound to an all-DNA substrate inhibitor (in blue).
Credit: Pley, Flaherty and McKay/Nature

"Apparently, the backbones of DNA and RNA can be rescued by the partial "victimization" of the nitrogenous bases," the scientists write. "One can assume that these bases had been selected to perform the UV-protecting function before they became involved in the maintenance and transfer of genetic information."

Since double strands provide more UV protection to the RNA backbone than single-strands, the scientists suggest that base-pairing may have originated as a trait to provide greater UV protection. Only later did these bases evolve to perform their current functions.

In the computer simulation, the stability of RNA under UV radiation gave the molecules a selective advantage, allowing the number of RNA molecules to increase under natural selection.

"In the UV-illuminated primordial world, the probability of a UV-breakage was more than real for any compound," the scientists write. "Those that succeeded to bind a UV-quencher got a selective advantage."

RNA is thought to be one of the most important molecules in the origin of life on Earth. The discovery of ribozymes led to the "RNA world" theory, in which RNA both stored genetic information and catalyzed its own replication. This presumably led to the contemporary DNA and protein world, where DNA acts as genetic storage and proteins are needed to catalyze replication.

"I believe that UV radiation has often gotten a "bad rap" in the origins community, which has led many researchers to dismiss its importance," says William Hagan, an associate scientist with the New York Center for Studies on the Origin of Life.

Hagan says we should recognize ultraviolet light as not only an incinerator of the organic precursors of life, but also as a fuel for creating those same materials. UV's simultaneous destructive and creative properties seem to create a paradox, but Hagan says the solution is to identify protected environments on the early Earth where the higher-energy "bad" rays were dispersed through seawater or minerals.

sun
"I just don't think that we can ignore the tremendous power of solar energy as the most abundant fuel on the early Earth." -William Hagan
Credit: NASA

Charles Darwin thought that life could have originated "in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, electricity, etc. present." Researchers have reflected upon Darwin's sunlit shallow pool ever since. John Desmond Bernal, for instance, said that life could have begun in tidal regions, where molecules faced alternating wet and dry periods. The wet period would dissolve chemicals and allow them to react with each other, while the dry periods would allow the chemicals to condense, spurring further reactions.

Yet the danger of UV damage prompted other scientists to suggest that a protective water layer would be necessary. Such an environment, however, would eliminate the possibility of the condensation reactions. But if Mulkidjanian's study is correct, then the UV exposure of tidal regions would not prevent the origin of an RNA world.

Hagan says that he, too, favors surface environments like the tidal lagoons for the origin of life. He thinks that while hydrothermal vents may have contributed to the concentration of organic chemicals, the sun provided a more widespread and intense energy source.

"I just don't think that we can ignore the tremendous power of solar energy as the most abundant fuel on the early Earth," Says Hagan.
What's Next
Mulkidjanian and his colleagues suggest that their hypothesis could be tested further. A reactor system could be set up to enable nucleotides to form from simpler molecules under conditions of UV-irradiation, with aluminosilicate clays added to catalyze the nucleotide formation.

"If confirmed by experiment, this would provide an exciting new role for UV light in the selective formation of biopolymers," says Hagan.

Here's another experiment on the generation of life, that included radiation to create the first building blocks of life:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory


A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed.

“It’s like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior,” said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday.

RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth’s history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant.

However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA’s component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients — a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases — ribonucleotides just wouldn’t form.

Sutherland’s team took a different approach in what Harvard molecular biologist Jack Szostak called a “synthetic tour de force” in an accompanying commentary in Nature.

“By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland. “The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.”

Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”

Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing “a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis.”

Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.

“Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry,” said Sutherland. “They’re doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complicated.”

Myth busted.
Logged
David Rothscum
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,683


« Reply #14 on: May 15, 2009, 06:23:16 AM »

And while we're at it, let's tackle the myth that the orgiinal Earth was full of Oxygen:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035_1.html
Response:

   1. There is a variety of evidence that the early atmosphere did not have significant oxygen (Turner 1981).

          * Banded iron formations are layers of hematite (Fe2O3) and other iron oxides deposited in the ocean 2.5 to 1.8 billion years ago. The conventional interpretation is that oxygen was introduced into the atmosphere for the first time in significant quantities beginning about 2.5 billion years ago when photosynthesis evolved. This caused the free iron dissolved in the ocean water to oxidize and precipitate. Thus, the banded iron formations mark the transition from an early earth with little free oxygen and much dissolved iron in water to present conditions with lots of free oxygen and little dissolved iron.
          * In rocks older than the banded iron formations, uranite and pyrite exist as detrital grains, or sedimentary grains that were rolling around in stream beds and beaches. These minerals are not stable for long periods in the present high-oxygen conditions.
          * "Red beds," which are terrestrial sediments with lots of iron oxides, need an oxygen atmosphere to form. They are not found in rocks older than about 2.3 billion years, but they become increasingly common afterward.
          * Sulfur isotope signatures of ancient sediments show that oxidative weathering was very low 2.4 billion years ago (Farquhar et al. 2000).

      The dominant scientific view is that the early atmosphere had 0.1 percent oxygen or less (Copley 2001).

   2. Free oxygen in the atmosphere today is mainly the result of photosynthesis. Before photosynthetic plants and bacteria appeared, we would expect little oxygen in the atmosphere for lack of a source. The oldest fossils (over a billion years older than the transition to an oxygen atmosphere) were bacteria; we do not find fossils of fish, clams, or other organisms that need oxygen in the oldest sediments.

Links:
Tamzek, Nic. 2002. Icon of obfuscation. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#Miller-Urey
References:

   1. Copley, Jon. 2001. The story of O. Nature 410: 862-864.
   2. Farquhar, J., H. Bao and M. Thiemens. 2000. Atmospheric influence of earth's earliest sulfur cycle. Science 289: 756-758.
   3. Turner, G. 1981. The development of the atmosphere. In: The Evolving Earth, ed. L. R. M. Cocks. London: British Museum, 121-136.

Further Reading:
Wiechert, Uwe H. 2002. Earth's early atmosphere. Science 298: 2341-2342.
Logged
Dok
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,713



WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 15, 2009, 06:26:29 AM »

no oxygen no ozone no life. if oxygen no life. and punt.  Cheesy
Logged

HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship Wink
David Rothscum
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,683


« Reply #16 on: May 15, 2009, 06:32:52 AM »

no oxygen no ozone no life. if oxygen no life. and punt.  Cheesy
I'm sorry man, but you're wrong. You can ignore every piece of evidence I posted and repeat your earlier statement, but it's no longer a viable argument because it has been debunked earlier. You'll have to come up with something new. You have something else right?
Logged
jshowell
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 772


« Reply #17 on: May 15, 2009, 06:33:31 AM »

from the posts it appears alot of you haven't read the science that's gone on for years with this subject.  Decades ago Stanley Miller found out that we could make amino acids from primordial conditons (the building blocks of proteins).  There was no free oxygen millions of years ago, it was originally produced as a WASTE product by lifeforms that developed later.    
Some of you might be saying well, DNA is what makes RNA is what makes proteins, well that's mostly right...TODAY.  RNA can and does still make some protein directly and some proteins have even been able to replicate (that's what a prion is).  So what biologists think today is life started the opposite way we see it working today.  Biology changes over time, just like everything.  Evolution by natural selection is flawed, but the theory of evolving organisms is not.
    
Logged
Dok
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,713



WWW
« Reply #18 on: May 15, 2009, 06:44:10 AM »

I'm sorry man, but you're wrong. You can ignore every piece of evidence I posted and repeat your earlier statement, but it's no longer a viable argument because it has been debunked earlier. You'll have to come up with something new. You have something else right?

sorry sport mines a fact.

Quote
no oxygen no ozone no life. if oxygen no life.

have fun.  Cheesy
Logged

HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship Wink
Scootle
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,233



« Reply #19 on: May 15, 2009, 06:46:23 AM »

Evolution by natural selection is flawed, but the theory of evolving organisms is not.
   

then why's it still a theory ... I have no doubt evolution occurs... animals, plants, bacteria, viruses .. they're evolving all the time but did we evolve or were we created ... thats the question ... and im fairly neutral on it.
Logged

The truth will set you free
From global tyranny
Wake up American slobs
9/11 was an inside job
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OntBg2qwk_M&fmt=35

Century of Manipulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mujq-C1UAw0

... Here's Tom with the weather!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CCIcjIngLA
David Rothscum
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,683


« Reply #20 on: May 15, 2009, 06:50:01 AM »

sorry sport mines a fact.

have fun.  Cheesy
I showed you why you're wrong. If you want to repeat some debunked patriot dogma, go ahead, but I rest my case.
Logged
Dok
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,713



WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 15, 2009, 06:54:44 AM »

I showed you why you're wrong. If you want to repeat some debunked patriot dogma, go ahead, but I rest my case.

what was that about circular reasoning??  Cheesy

i stand by what i said as it cannot be refuted.
Logged

HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship Wink
Kilika
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,865

Thank you Jesus!


« Reply #22 on: May 15, 2009, 06:57:36 AM »

I'd like to know how they explain where the energy comes from that causes the protons and electrons to orbit a nucleus, and where the energy came from that caused the "Big Bang". Spontaneous Combustion? I think not.

Evolution debates are an insane waste of time. Christians that claim evolution cannot happen are forgetting that with God, all things are posssible.

Evolution and the origins of the universe are a moot point! It's all a distraction and tens of millions have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.
Logged

"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
1 Timothy 6:10 (KJB)
David Rothscum
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,683


« Reply #23 on: May 15, 2009, 07:02:20 AM »

what was that about circular reasoning??  Cheesy

i stand by what i said as it cannot be refuted.
I just refuted it. It's like you can't see something when it's contrary to your views. You see, this isn't how discussion works. You claim that UV light prevented the generation of organic molecules, I show that UV light can actually help the generation of more complex organic molecules. You're supposed to refute the new argument, not repeat your earlier debunked claim.
Logged
Lilly Bighorn
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 974



« Reply #24 on: May 15, 2009, 07:13:56 AM »

I just refuted it. It's like you can't see something when it's contrary to your views. You see, this isn't how discussion works. You claim that UV light prevented the generation of organic molecules, I show that UV light can actually help the generation of more complex organic molecules. You're supposed to refute the new argument, not repeat your earlier debunked claim.

frankly, this is a habit with dok. he tries to shroud his faith-based initiatives with pseudo-science copied and pasted from other sites, but which doesn't stand up to even basic scrutiny, after which he has no other foundation of facts to stand on, so he pleads the bible and runs off to commit his next crime against truth and reason.

so i wouldn't hold my breath waiting for his thoughtful refutation of your facts. it would be refreshing though, if he could.
Logged

Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."
Dok
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,713



WWW
« Reply #25 on: May 15, 2009, 07:17:15 AM »

frankly, this is a habit with dok. he tries to shroud his faith-based initiatives with pseudo-science copied and pasted from other sites, but which doesn't stand up to even basic scrutiny, after which he has no other foundation of facts to stand on, so he pleads the bible and runs off to commit his next crime against truth and reason.

so i wouldn't hold my breath waiting for his thoughtful refutation of your facts. it would be refreshing though, if he could.

im sorry but can you refute what i stated?? no you cant. But hey you probably belive we all came from a rock, like dave does.
Logged

HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship Wink
Dok
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,713



WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 15, 2009, 07:18:25 AM »

frankly, this is a habit with dok. he tries to shroud his faith-based initiatives with pseudo-science copied and pasted from other sites, but which doesn't stand up to even basic scrutiny, after which he has no other foundation of facts to stand on, so he pleads the bible and runs off to commit his next crime against truth and reason.

so i wouldn't hold my breath waiting for his thoughtful refutation of your facts. it would be refreshing though, if he could.


oh and your also the person that refuses to actually do any kind of research what so ever. so again how can you weigh in on a debate with out even understanding it in the first place??
Logged

HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship Wink
Dok
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,713



WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2009, 07:18:59 AM »

I just refuted it. It's like you can't see something when it's contrary to your views. You see, this isn't how discussion works. You claim that UV light prevented the generation of organic molecules, I show that UV light can actually help the generation of more complex organic molecules. You're supposed to refute the new argument, not repeat your earlier debunked claim.

I wouldnt call talk origins any kind of refute.  Cheesy
Logged

HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship Wink
Lilly Bighorn
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 974



« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2009, 07:22:33 AM »


oh and your also the person that refuses to actually do any kind of research what so ever. so again how can you weigh in on a debate with out even understanding it in the first place??

false. i am always willing to do research. i simply refused to listen to all 4 hours of a lecture you posted after listening to some of it and there being no relevance to our discussion. i asked you to clarify the relevance or point to some particular part of the lecture, but you refused and mocked me for not listening. meanwhile, i hardly suspect you've thoroughly read the evidence against you here before denying it. that's hypocrisy, dok.


im sorry but can you refute what i stated?? no you cant. But hey you probably belive we all came from a rock, like dave does.

false. i did refute what you said. and then dave did so much more eloquently. and you don't have a clue what i believe.
Logged

Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."
Dok
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,713



WWW
« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2009, 07:23:52 AM »

frankly, this is a habit with dok. he tries to shroud his faith-based initiatives with pseudo-science copied and pasted from other sites, but which doesn't stand up to even basic scrutiny, after which he has no other foundation of facts to stand on, so he pleads the bible and runs off to commit his next crime against truth and reason.

so i wouldn't hold my breath waiting for his thoughtful refutation of your facts. it would be refreshing though, if he could.


could you point out your refute?? please point it out. Ohh thats right, you didint.
Logged

HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship Wink
Lilly Bighorn
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 974



« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2009, 07:24:34 AM »

i think this is a fallacy. as you point out, dok, in the reducing atmosphere hypothesis, the past was not like the present. certainly you or i or most advanced life forms could not exist on a planet with no protection from solar radiation. but that's not necessarily true on the level of rna.
Logged

Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."
David Rothscum
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,683


« Reply #31 on: May 15, 2009, 07:42:03 AM »

I wouldnt call talk origins any kind of refute.  Cheesy
You don't have to believe Talk Origins. As you can see the page I posted contained various references to studies that have been done. Click on the links, or copypaste the names of the studies into Google. You'll see that TO didn't just make this up. Also, besides TO I posted a study and another article, but you ignore all of it. You see, if you would've preferred, I could've just copypasted the full versions of all these studies, but I wouldn't expect you'd read all of it. I know many folks here have a habit of just copypasting giant hours long documentaries and enormous articles and pretend these are arguments to make their opposition shut up, kill the debate, and keep anyone from finding anything new out, but I'm not looking to make anyone shut up, I prefer a debate.
Logged
iRonic
Guest
« Reply #32 on: May 15, 2009, 07:54:52 AM »

Quote from:  doktorschnabelvonrom
Atmosphere with oxygen => No amino acids => No life possible!
Atmosphere without oxygen => No ozone => No life possible!
Quote from: David Rothscum
Armen Mulkidjanian, with his colleagues from Osnabrück University, Germany and the National Institutes of Health, USA, used computer models to test RNA's ability to form from sugar, phosphates, and nitrogenous bases in the presence of high levels of UV light.
While the researchers acknowledge that UV can be damaging to RNA, they discovered that some parts of the molecule act as a protective shield for other parts. The nitrogenous bases absorb and disperse UV radiation, protecting the RNA's pentose-phosphate backbone.
Quote from:  doktorschnabelvonrom
sorry sport mines a fact.
Quote from:  doktorschnabelvonrom
im sorry but can you refute what i stated?? no you cant
Quote from: David Rothscum
Armen Mulkidjanian, with his colleagues from Osnabrück University, Germany and the National Institutes of Health, USA, used computer models to test RNA's ability to form from sugar, phosphates, and nitrogenous bases in the presence of high levels of UV light.
While the researchers acknowledge that UV can be damaging to RNA, they discovered that some parts of the molecule act as a protective shield for other parts. The nitrogenous bases absorb and disperse UV radiation, protecting the RNA's pentose-phosphate backbone.
Logged
Dok
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,713



WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 15, 2009, 08:17:34 AM »



you do know that all of those "tests" are computer models. and that no real world tests have been done. Hmm. wonder why?
Logged

HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship Wink
David Rothscum
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,683


« Reply #34 on: May 15, 2009, 08:29:28 AM »

you do know that all of those "tests" are computer models. and that no real world tests have been done. Hmm. wonder why?
Actually as I pointed out we've also seen studies using radiation to create more complex organic molecules. And if you would've actually looked up the studies in the talkorigins rebuttal I posted you would've found this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10024233?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

UV irradiation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in ices: production of alcohols, quinones, and ethers.
Bernstein MP, Sandford SA, Allamandola LJ, Gillette JS, Clemett SJ, Zare RN.
Collaborators (1)

Allamandola LJ.

NASA-Ames Research Center, Mail Stop 245-6, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000, USA. mbernstein@mail.arc.nasa.gov

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in water ice were exposed to ultraviolet (UV) radiation under astrophysical conditions, and the products were analyzed by infrared spectroscopy and mass spectrometry. Peripheral carbon atoms were oxidized, producing aromatic alcohols, ketones, and ethers, and reduced, producing partially hydrogenated aromatic hydrocarbons, molecules that account for the interstellar 3.4-micrometer emission feature. These classes of compounds are all present in carbonaceous meteorites. Hydrogen and deuterium atoms exchange readily between the PAHs and the ice, which may explain the deuterium enrichments found in certain meteoritic molecules. This work has important implications for extraterrestrial organics in biogenesis.

So yes, UV radiation creates organic compounds. It can destroy them but also help create them.
Logged
jofortruth
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12,748



WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 15, 2009, 08:33:29 AM »

Wow cool! Did he find a tadpole in it?  Roll Eyes
Logged

Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

The Great Deception - Forum/Library - My Research
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Deception/index.php?showforum=110
Dok
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,713



WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 15, 2009, 08:34:42 AM »

man thats a lot of work that has to go into to create the right conditions to even test these tests. so who was setting up the conditions way back then??
Logged

HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship Wink
Dok
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,713



WWW
« Reply #37 on: May 15, 2009, 08:34:56 AM »

Wow cool! Did he find a tadpole in it?  Roll Eyes

 Cheesy
Logged

HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship Wink
Dok
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,713



WWW
« Reply #38 on: May 15, 2009, 08:39:09 AM »

hey dave, dont get me wrong, im sure that all of these "scientists" are on par, they'd never lie to us.  Cheesy Roll Eyes
Logged

HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship Wink
David Rothscum
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,683


« Reply #39 on: May 15, 2009, 08:44:53 AM »

Wow cool! Did he find a tadpole in it?  Roll Eyes
No, unfortunately not. It would have been a great argument for creationism though. Scientists bring the building blocks of life together and complex modern lifeforms are spontaneously created. What a miracle, turns out the Bible was right all along! But we saw what you would've expected if evolution was true. The basic building blocks of life come together and form increasingly complex molecules.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!