Warrior, that Dr Kim looks alot better.

As for Neanderthal, you broght him up, not me. I'm currently of th opinion that they are a realitive, but not in our direct line.

At this point in science, it's only reasonable to expect difficulties in extracting and analyzing 40,000 year old DNA. Since most bones of the ear are fosilized, good samples for extraction are rare, the few profiles we have are very sparce. I too would like to see more data from this disipline, but that in no way negates the other more developed evidence we have.

Of course you should not be suprised that I am open to additinal inquiry. It is you who has decided the answer is God.

Tin Can & Antelope Sniper and Ghubert,

if your mothers hadn't spent years potty-training the three of you, you'd still be soiling yourself several times a day. One would think evolution would have solved that minor issue.

This is proof, not theory, that there was a higher intelligence than you when you were born.

Rich

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.../04/080424140418.htm

Here is the link you asked for.

A further, more fundamental point is that the argument above is reasoned on the basis of an assumption, the assumption that intelligent design is in fact the case.

This is not accepted or even sensibly established.

The issue with heaven and hell is your understanding of heaven and hell, a personal interpretation is not and cannot be taken a universal principle. As a trite example if Heaven is a state of being with god and hell is the opposite an atheist wouldn't experience the twain in the same light as a theist. He'd be wrong about god but not necessarily compelled to love him either, unless threatened with hell fire, something everyone agrees would be pretty hellish.

The whole discussion above comes before such considerations in any event, the real question is where does energy come from, energy being effectively everything?

If you consider the tools the aliens used to land on our planet and plant their genetic seed then I'm afraid you'll have to push the history of tools back 1 billion years.

quote:

Originally posted by Grenadier:
If you consider the tools the aliens used to land on our planet and plant their genetic seed then I'm afraid you'll have to push the history of tools back 1 billion years.

Well, yes.

I think.

Possibly.

Actually no, I'm sorry.

No way.

Okay, so aliens landed only 500 million years ago.

quote:

While sorting through 768,593,421 pieces of flint in a 500 million year old deposit of debris, scientists in northern Albania recently discovered these 22 man made tools.

The find offers incontrovertible proof that intelligent man used tools 497 million years earlier then previously believed. Of special note is the large "preening" stone in the center that scientists suspect was used to scrape pimples from the faces of young girls preparing for marriage. Other tools shown are a chopping stone, spearhead, arrowhead, harpoon blade, and a tooth cleaning stone that was the forerunner of the modern toothbrush.

quote:

if your mothers hadn't spent years potty-training the three of you, you'd still be soiling yourself several times a day. One would think evolution would have solved that minor issue.

Only if mothers murdered their babies that were not born potty trained. In one generation we would be extinct.

Much better.

Oh bollocks, nope, no, i'm sorry I'll have to disagree again!

Have you heard the reports about the tools they used to carve the sarcophagi of the Pharaohs?

Apparently they were cutting stone at a faster rate than we can now.

However in all seriousness even if aliens created all life on earth, the existence of life in the first place, no actually the universe come to think of it, is the biggie.

I wonder if a parallel thread on the existence of aliens might profitably be started?

quote:

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by Grenadier:
Okay, so aliens landed only 500 million years ago.

quote:

While sorting through 768,593,421 pieces of flint in a 500 million year old deposit of debris, scientists in northern Albania recently discovered these 22 man made tools.

The find offers incontrovertible proof that intelligent man used tools 497 million years earlier then previously believed. Of special note is the large "preening" stone in the center that scientists suspect was used to scrape pimples from the faces of young girls preparing for marriage. Other tools shown are a chopping stone, spearhead, arrowhead, harpoon blade, and a tooth cleaning stone that was the forerunner of the modern toothbrush.

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
Tin Can & Antelope Sniper and Ghubert,

if your mothers hadn't spent years potty-training the three of you, you'd still be soiling yourself several times a day. One would think evolution would have solved that minor issue.

This is proof, not theory, that there was a higher intelligence than you when you were born.

Rich

Genius.

If God had meant us to be potty trained/fly he would have created us with bomb-flaps/wings.

Examine the reply immediately below yours above, examine the link and ponder the issues.

Precisely where I shat as a baby is, erm, secondary.

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
Tin Can & Antelope Sniper and Ghubert,

if your mothers hadn't spent years potty-training the three of you, you'd still be soiling yourself several times a day. One would think evolution would have solved that minor issue.

This is proof, not theory, that there was a higher intelligence than you when you were born.

Rich

Don't roll me into this shit at this point of the game- I haven't participated since the first page, really...

quote:

This is proof, not theory, that there was a higher intelligence than you when you were born.

Can you cite where I declared otherwise?

Every thing in life is about intelligence: -

From building a car, train or plane.
None of these things got there by themselves.
They all required planning and mental construct.
I see the Universe in the same light - it required some intelligent design.
As without it, just imagine the potential chaos.
Every star is actually a SUN ... a fire ball.
And these fire balls can burn for millions of years.
A lot better than we can create as humans.
Where would we have been without our sun?
In front of our eyes we have a miracle, boys.

To better understand this miracle go to ..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

Warrior

tin can,

didn't want you to feel left out.

Rich

We ARE dealing withe the same scientific community that determined, some decades back that:

The A Bomb could not exist
Bumblebees are too aerodynamic to fly
The Titanic was unsinkable

I was kicking through the gravel spread over my driveway and I found a stone that looks like it was formed into a little tool. I better contact the local university. I hope they don't turn my drive into an archeological dig.

quote:

Okay, so aliens landed only 500 million years ago.

Grenadier,

If the aliens landed here to establish an outpost, I would expect them to make regular visits to check on the progress here and to set up shop here as well as education and scientific institutions. Cross pollination of ideas would obvious enhance progress on earth a great deal from these 'super' beings. Come to think of it, could they be human beings or just beings, as evolution seem to have so many combinations and permutations?

It would be unreasonable to expect that they would only visit the planet once, and then never return, not so?

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
Every thing in life is about intelligence: -

From building a car, train or plane.
None of these things got there by themselves.
They all required planning and mental construct.
I see the Universe in the same light - it required some intelligent design.
As without it, just imagine the potential chaos.
Every star is actually a SUN ... a fire ball.
And these fire balls can burn for millions of years.
A lot better than we can create as humans.
Where would we have been without our sun?
In front of our eyes we have a miracle, boys.

To better understand this miracle go to ..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

Warrior

Order, Chris, not itelligence.

Everything depends on order.

This is what Einstein meant when he said that god does not play dice.

We are at the crux of the matter, what is the source of the order apparent in the universe.

I say that I don't don't know but you say that it is a god, moreover the god of the testaments.

This I don't accept because the idea of god doesn't really lessen the mystery, viz that even if a god created everything and I was to ask where he came from; the answer, being that he was always there as he is everything, is exactly the same as could be given to explain the existance of the universe without a god!

Nested paradoxes in other words.

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
tin can,

didn't want you to feel left out.

Rich

We ARE dealing withe the same scientific community that determined, some decades back that:

The A Bomb could not exist
Bumblebees are too aerodynamic to fly
The Titanic was unsinkable

I see you like a drink in the afternoons even more than I do.

Mate the thing you've said about science above points to science eventually finding the answer, not the other way round.......

quote:

Originally posted by Grenadier:
I was kicking through the gravel spread over my driveway and I found a stone that looks like it was formed into a little tool. I better contact the local university. I hope they don't turn my drive into an archeological dig.

It's a risk, mix it with some cement and pour a shed foundation, quick!

Both s

Ghubert,

as usual you missed the point. The scientific community, using the best available data at that time determined, nay proved those three "truths" and loudly proclaimed them to the world at large. Were they ignorant or presumptuous?

The question today is:

a. Were they lying to us then

OR:

b. Are they lying to us now

OR:

c. Were they all full of "it" and themselves


I will confess to feeling a bit sorry for those of you on the "wrong" side of this issue. Evolutionists play Russian Roulette with their eternal lives with every breath. We all do, and for us all, the hammer finally falls on that loaded chamber. If you are right, then that is the end of it all. If you are wrong, then the eternal sadness of being separated from God and those who believed in Him will be far more agonizing and endless than you can ever imagine. You will never enjoy being right if you are (because you can never know until it is too late if you decide you are), but knowing you are wrong and can never escape the consequences of that decision would be...

Pain that is indescribable & unbearable and unendable.

Rich


Rich

They weren't lying Uncle Rich, they were proposing a theory or the state of the art at the time if you prefer.

That's the great thing about science, it operates from the assumption that a theory is wrong, positing a null hypothesis, and tests it.

If the test reveal a flaw in the model we know that a new model is needed but don't drop the old model until we have found anotehr model that explains observational data better.

The analogy would be to test the fact that gravity is always attractive by lifting an apple and letting go of it at height. the apple falls and the theory is survives the test.

On the other hand we allegedly have a state of affaris whereby God's will( it's embodiment in any event) was nailed to a tree 2000 years ago for saying how great it would be to be nice ton one and other for a change.

I'm sure that god, if he is what the scriptures say will forgive a little doubt and concentrate on the good moral stuff I've (mostly) been doing.

Lawrence Krauss is a physicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.

"Krauss works in a new field called “particle astrophysics” that examines the interactions of two size extremes - fundamental particles smaller than atoms, and the entire universe. “In the past 15 to 20 years,” he said, “the two frontiers of our knowledge, the biggest things in the universe and the smallest things in the universe, have come together. Understanding one requires understanding the other.”

One of Krauss's projects

One of Krauss's projects is to search for “dark matter,” mass that scientists can not see directly. By studying how gravity affects galaxies, astronomers know that every galaxy must contain more mass than we can see. We see matter only when it radiates or reflects light; if it does not, the matter will be invisible “dark” matter. According to some gravitational calculations, almost 90% of the matter in the universe is dark. (Wow)

Scientists have several theories about the nature of dark matter.

One theory says that dark matter is a type of subatomic particle that we have not yet observed. If dark matter were a new type of particle, then it should affect the way atoms work. On the other hand, this particle would have mass, so each particle would create gravitational force. Because there is so much dark matter, all these tiny forces taken together would affect the structure of the whole universe.

“We might discover [dark matter] in an accelerator first,” Krauss said, “but we might discover it out in the cosmos.” Krauss looks for evidence at both scales. “[I enjoy the] thrill of understanding something that [I] didn't understand before,” he said. “The universe is full of surprises.”

Having read this, I can appreciate why we know so little about gravity and that it is still largely a mystery. Richard Dawkings in contrast with other physicists maintains that gravity pre-dates our universe. How would gravity exist without matter? If gravity is part of the creation of the universe, it means that it had a beginning. If it had a beginning then in my humble opinion there must be a Great Architect to this unbelievably complex awe inspiring universe.

Warrior

quote:

I will confess to feeling a bit sorry for those of you on the "wrong" side of this issue. Evolutionists play Russian Roulette with their eternal lives with every breath. We all do, and for us all, the hammer finally falls on that loaded chamber. If you are right, then that is the end of it all. If you are wrong, then the eternal sadness of being separated from God and those who believed in Him will be far more agonizing and endless than you can ever imagine. You will never enjoy being right if you are (because you can never know until it is too late if you decide you are), but knowing you are wrong and can never escape the consequences of that decision would be...

Pain that is indescribable & unbearable and unendable.

Idaho, it sounds like you believe out of fear, not logic. At least you explained why you are not open to logical discussion on this subject.

Antelope Sniper,

not fear, out of love for someone who sent His Son to die for me so that I might be with Him in Heaven when I die. My fear is for non-believers who cannot live, but cannot die either after earth time is over.

You are trying to equate love and fear. Do you love your parents? Did you fear punishment for things you did or didn't do that they required of you growing up? Did you hate your Father or Mother when they spanked you? Of course not, but you didn't like them very much at the time.

Have you ever read the Bible where Christ tells the parable of Lazarus and the rich man? Lazarus was a cripple, and sat at the foot of the table when the rich man had meals for his friends. He would get bits of food thrown to him off their plates. It says he had open sores, and that the rich man's dogs came and licked them. He died, and as a believer went to Heaven. The rich man died, and because he was not a believer, he went to Hell. There is an abyss between the two, and he called out to God to let Lazarus dip his finger in water and touch the tip of his tongue because he was in torment. God had to tell him that could not be, because there was an impenetrable space (like a pane of glass or a see-thru curtain) between the two. So then, the rich man asked God if he would send Lazarus back to earth to warn his family so that they did not join him when they died. God could not do that either, and that they had the Bible and the prophets to learn from. The rich man replied, but Lord, if a man rose from the dead to warn them, surely they would believe. God had to tell him, with sadness, that if they did not believe what they read and heard, that sending Lazarus back would not convince them either.

The thing most atheists fail to comprehend is that God is perfect. His issue is that he cannot co-exist with evil because of His nature.
He loved Mankind enough, that like your parents when you got your drivers license, he let you drive the car. They warn you of the consequences for acting a fool, and then they have to let you go out and succeed or fail. There are always consequences for our actions.

God gives us freedom of choice, and then holds us responsible for the consequences. Just like your parents did/do. The equivalent of "Tough Love" but with terminal and eternal repercussions.

In 21st century America the idea of consequences for your actions is anathematic (sp?). We all want our rights, but not the responsibility for exercising those rights in an adult manner. Just look at the voting process this past Tuesday.

In short; God gave you the right of free choice. He holds you accountable for the manner in which you exercise that right. He will always forgive you and take you back if you want Him to. He will also let you go, if that is your desire.

God Bless you, anyway...

Rich

It is always interesting to watch the believers try to rationalize the irrational.
There has never been a shred of physical evidence that indicates any supernormal being exists.
On the other hand if man were exterminated the universe would continue on as now and the notion of god would be totally worthless.

I would like to know - can god commit suicide?

Is DNA a code or just a molecule with a pattern?

Warrior

SR,

actually, we believe that there is a higher power than us. We just cannot apply our own puny intelligence and powers of reasoning to His.

If that is a difficult concept for you, sit down in your yard next to an anthill and try and discuss it with them. They will become aware of you in just a minute or two. If they could conceptualize it, they might consider you a god. You have been there for a longer time than they can imagine. You have always been there, in ant terms. Leave a few bread crumbs and a piece of lunch meat the size of your little fingernail by the mound hole. You have fed the multitudes, you are a god. Smack your fist on a few as they run around busily. You have the power of life and death. You are a god, if they can conceptualize that abstraction. Are ants sentient beings? They can pass along messages with great speed and clarity. They care for their young. They build great cities. They move from place to place in search of a better life. An ant will fight you, for the life of his colony. They know you are going to destroy them, effortlessly. They fight invader ants for the life of their colony. They put away food for the long winters.

Are they not like us, and perhaps equivalent to us in comparison to our relationship to God?

In the end, nothing I or anyone else can say to you to change your mind. Only you can do that. You believe in something that cannot be proven. I do believe in God, and so do many others. As believers, we do not mock you, or rail against you. We just feel that sadness. It is the same feeling a christian mother has when she learns her child is a willful sinner.

We're just unhappy that you have nothing better to look forward to than gradual or not deterioration here, and an eternity with no future for you in it.

Rich

When I first glanced at the thread title I read "fools" instead of "tools", and was not surprised.

quote:

While sorting through 768,593,421 pieces of flint in a 500 million year old deposit of debris, scientists in northern Albania recently discovered these 22 man made tools.

The find offers incontrovertible proof that intelligent man used tools 497 million years earlier then previously believed. Of special note is the large "preening" stone in the center that scientists suspect was used to scrape pimples from the faces of young girls preparing for marriage. Other tools shown are a chopping stone, spearhead, arrowhead, harpoon blade, and a tooth cleaning stone that was the forerunner of the modern toothbrush.

Brice,

1.) How long have we been using knifes and forks, and let us throw a pair of scissors in the basket as well? Just curious to know. Some still eat by hand and others with sticks.

2.) I repeat this question here again ... Is DNA a code or just a molecule with a pattern? Either way motivate your answer.

Please give us your take on the subject.
We need to hear all perspectives.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
Antelope Sniper,

not fear, out of love for someone who sent His Son to die for me so that I might be with Him in Heaven when I die. My fear is for non-believers who cannot live, but cannot die either after earth time is over.

You are trying to equate love and fear. Do you love your parents? Did you fear punishment for things you did or didn't do that they required of you growing up? Did you hate your Father or Mother when they spanked you? Of course not, but you didn't like them very much at the time.

Have you ever read the Bible where Christ tells the parable of Lazarus and the rich man? Lazarus was a cripple, and sat at the foot of the table when the rich man had meals for his friends. He would get bits of food thrown to him off their plates. It says he had open sores, and that the rich man's dogs came and licked them. He died, and as a believer went to Heaven. The rich man died, and because he was not a believer, he went to Hell. There is an abyss between the two, and he called out to God to let Lazarus dip his finger in water and touch the tip of his tongue because he was in torment. God had to tell him that could not be, because there was an impenetrable space (like a pane of glass or a see-thru curtain) between the two. So then, the rich man asked God if he would send Lazarus back to earth to warn his family so that they did not join him when they died. God could not do that either, and that they had the Bible and the prophets to learn from. The rich man replied, but Lord, if a man rose from the dead to warn them, surely they would believe. God had to tell him, with sadness, that if they did not believe what they read and heard, that sending Lazarus back would not convince them either.

The thing most atheists fail to comprehend is that God is perfect. His issue is that he cannot co-exist with evil because of His nature.
He loved Mankind enough, that like your parents when you got your drivers license, he let you drive the car. They warn you of the consequences for acting a fool, and then they have to let you go out and succeed or fail. There are always consequences for our actions.

God gives us freedom of choice, and then holds us responsible for the consequences. Just like your parents did/do. The equivalent of "Tough Love" but with terminal and eternal repercussions.

In 21st century America the idea of consequences for your actions is anathematic (sp?). We all want our rights, but not the responsibility for exercising those rights in an adult manner. Just look at the voting process this past Tuesday.

In short; God gave you the right of free choice. He holds you accountable for the manner in which you exercise that right. He will always forgive you and take you back if you want Him to. He will also let you go, if that is your desire.

God Bless you, anyway...

Rich

God, if such there be, really must have a sense of humor to have all those Christians believing all that tripe.

Warrior,
You misinterpreted my meaning. It was very straightforward. I really meant that I was not surprised that fools originated far earlier than was previously thought. Regarding the discussion in this thread, I am a searcher like many, and don't claim any high gournd. I am just happy to read and contemplate the arguments posited here.

Warrior asked two questions:

1.

quote:

While sorting through 768,593,421 pieces of flint........

This went right over Warrior's head so it is not really a question. It does indicate what one has to contend with when "debating" with Warrior.

2. Translation of question two: "I know so little about the subject that I do not know how to ask the questions. I will repeat them until they become the truth."

quote:

Originally posted by Brice:
Warrior,
You misinterpreted my meaning. It was very straightforward. I really meant that I was not surprised that fools originated far earlier than was previously thought. Regarding the discussion in this thread, I am a searcher like many, and don't claim any high gournd. I am just happy to read and contemplate the arguments posited here.

Brice,

I am with you on this one. We are in deed from very humble beginnings, but it intrigues me when we actually started to use modern tools such as knifes and forks as opposed to sharp stones and flints ( Flintstone is a hard, sedimentary cryptocrystalline form of the mineral quartz ). I am not sure myself, but suspect that knifes and forks as we know them today are probably an offspring of the industrial revolution and that is like yesterday. (More on the history of the fork ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork/)

Without education I guess we would all be 'fools' even though we have an inbred IQ. So education is equal to enlightenment in a sense, and with regard to this wonderful subject under discussion, I would class myself in the category of still searching for enlightenment, but would be content to admit that I know very little. The vast universe in all its glory humbles me, and it makes me feel like a fool - just a tiny spec with a limited lifespan against what seems a timeless universe.

Warrior

Idaho, since there are over 38,000 different variants of the Christian Faith today, how do you know you belong to the right one?

http://vids.myspace.com/index....dual&videoid=2373188

quote:

The thing most atheists fail to comprehend is that God is perfect. His issue is that he cannot co-exist with evil because of His nature.

Really??
He destroy's all human life with a flood, Not evil?

He has his own son tortured to death, so his chosen people can eat his flesh and drink his blood every Sunday? Not evil?

All but 144,000 of us are going to be murdered because of his little pissing match with Satan? Not evil?

How about the 20+ Genocides commited in the name of God in the Old Testiment? Not evil?

Perfect?
Since we have established that the bible is wrong on:
1. The earth is flat.
2. The earth stands on pillars.
3. The earth is the center of the universe.
4. The earth is create before the stars.
5. Light is created before the sun and stars.
6. The earth is surrounded by a solid firmament that would prevent space travel.
7. Plants are created before the sun (makes photosynthis difficult)
8. The earth is created first, then the stars around it.
9. Creation takes 6 days, not billions of years.
10. What did the carnivors on Noah's are eat after they disembarked? Why didn't they all starve to death?
11. Bats are birds, not mammals.
12. The sun orbits the earth.

The very concencept that God is Perfect, all knowing, all kind, and all powerful does not pass any honest reading of the Bible.

I believe the Bible contains much wisdom, but we much weight the truths agains the misconceptions of the men who wrote it. When assessing and evaluting it, we must remeber the human condition today is much different then with the cannon was set at the council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., when Mary's virgin condition was voted on. If the bible was the perfect word of God, there would be no need for councils of men to vote on such matters.

My oldest son's first lesson in College, his prof. told the class the only thing a Phd. means is "You can Pile it Higher and Deeper no matter how much it cost you to get it"

This has been a good read! Its amazing at what some people will accept and beleive! Even when there are no facts to back up their beleif.

Timber ape,

Welcome on board, looks like you are new here. Would love to hear some of your perspectives.
All opinions are welcome.

Warrior

The essence of this debate is really how did life start on earth and that makes genetics the prime field of study, quite apart from the creation of the universe and why it came so that we only know about life on earth. It begs the question ... why do we not have 'nothing' here on earth like everywhere else - why should we have life here - is their a plan or purpose?

The programming code of life, according to evolutionists, is just a series of biochemical accidents and mutations. Hence my question whether DNA is a code or a pattern? The infinitely complex engineering of this code means that it did not come about via 'natural selection,' aka random chance. This is a view held by many, but disputed by some and that makes for a debate. All opionions are welcome, but evidence is even better and failing concrete evidence we are down to a most likely scenario.

Here are just two opinions that are thrown into the hat:

1. Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

2. Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

Warrior

quote:

why do we not have 'nothing' here on earth like everywhere else

What evidence do you have that we are the only life? The Drake equation predicts 20 additional, advanced civilizations in our Galaxy. With several hundred billion galaxies, that would equate to several trillion advanced civilizations. That would make us alot less unique.

With the potential for over a a tiillion other advanced civilizations, how self absorbed and narcissistic would we have to be inorder to think this entire universe was created just for us?

As for the complexity of DNA, as of now, we may not fully understand it, but we keep discovering more every year. Last year scientist managed to create RNA in a lab:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscie.../05/ribonucleotides/

How many year before they make the jump from creating RNA to DNA? Good question. What's important is we are gaining a better understanding of how, beginning with RNA, DNA evolved.


Here's a good article describing the experiment:

http://www.livescience.com/str...1-creating-life.html

Strange News
Life As We Know It Nearly Created in LabBy Robert Roy Britt, Editorial Director

posted: 11 January 2009 03:49 pm ET
One of life's greatest mysteries is how it began. Scientists have pinned it down to roughly this:

Some chemical reactions occurred about 4 billion years ago — perhaps in a primordial tidal soup or maybe with help of volcanoes or possibly at the bottom of the sea or between the mica sheets — to create biology.

Now scientists have created something in the lab that is tantalizingly close to what might have happened. It's not life, they stress, but it certainly gives the science community a whole new data set to chew on.

The researchers, at the Scripps Research Institute, created molecules that self-replicate and even evolve and compete to win or lose. If that sounds exactly like life, read on to learn the controversial and thin distinction.

Know your RNA

To understand the remarkable breakthrough, detailed Jan. 8 in the early online edition of the journal Science, you have to know a little about molecules called RNA and DNA.

DNA is the software of life, the molecules that pack all the genetic information of a cell. DNA and the genes within it are where mutations occur, enabling changes that create new species.

RNA is the close cousin to DNA. More accurately, RNA is thought to be a primitive ancestor of DNA. RNA can't run a life form on its own, but 4 billion years ago it might have been on the verge of creating life, just needing some chemical fix to make the leap. In today's world, RNA is dependent on DNA for performing its roles, which include coding for proteins.

If RNA is in fact the ancestor to DNA, then scientists have figured they could get RNA to replicate itself in a lab without the help of any proteins or other cellular machinery. Easy to say, hard to do.

But that's exactly what the Scripps researchers did. Then things went surprisingly further.

'Immortalized'

Specifically, the researchers synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely. "Immortalized" RNA, they call it, at least within the limited conditions of a laboratory.

More significantly, the scientists then mixed different RNA enzymes that had replicated, along with some of the raw material they were working with, and let them compete in what's sure to be the next big hit: "Survivor: Test Tube."

Remarkably, they bred.

And now and then, one of these survivors would screw up, binding with some other bit of raw material it hadn't been using. Hmm. That's exactly what life forms do ...

When these mutations occurred, "the resulting recombinant enzymes also were capable of sustained replication, with the most fit replicators growing in number to dominate the mixture," the scientists report.

The "creatures" — wait, we can't call them that! — evolved, with some "species" winning out.

"It kind of blew me away," said team member Tracey Lincoln of the Scripps Research Institute, who is working on her Ph.D. "What we have is non-living, but we've been able to show that it has some life-like properties, and that was extremely interesting."

Indeed.

Knocking on life's door

Lincoln's advisor, professor Gerald Joyce, reiterated that while the self-replicating RNA enzyme systems share certain characteristics of life, they are not life as we know it.

"What we've found could be relevant to how life begins, at that key moment when Darwinian evolution starts," Joyce said in a statement.

Joyce's restraint, clear also on an NPR report of the finding, has to be appreciated. He allows that some scientists familiar with the work have argued that this is life. Another scientist said that what the researchers did is equivalent to recreating a scenario that might have led to the origin of life.

Joyce insists he and Lincoln have not created life: "We're knocking on that door," he says, "but of course we haven't achieved that."

Only when a system is developed in the lab that has the capability of evolving novel functions on its own can it be properly called life, Joyce said. In short, the molecules in Joyce's lab can't evolve any totally new tricks, he said.

quote:

What evidence do you have that we are the only life? The Drake equation predicts 20 additional, advanced civilizations in our Galaxy. With several hundred billion galaxies, that would equate to several trillion advanced civilizations. That would make us alot less unique.

The above seems to suggest that it is factual that we have advanced civilizations out there and this is based on the so called "Drake Equation" that Frank Drake devised in 1961. This is merely a hypothesis and not a proven fact. His controversial equation multiplies estimates of various factors to predict that there are approximately 10,000 planets in the Milky Way galaxy containing intelligent life with the possible capability of communicating with planet Earth. Wow, what a profound proposition !!! But was he the first to come up with such a novel idea? We will look at that just now, but first here is a stern warning ....

Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking warned that humans should not try to contact alien life forms. He warned that aliens might pillage Earth for resources. "If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn't turn out well for the Native Americans," he said. Geographer Jared Diamond has also expressed similar concerns. Now let us go back further into history ....

The first important Western thinkers to argue systematically for a Universe full of other planets and, therefore, possible extraterrestrial life were the ancient Greek writer Thales and his student Anaximander in the 7th and 6th centuries B.C.

Authors of Jewish sources also considered extraterrestrial life. The Talmud states that there are at least 18,000 other worlds, but provides little elaboration on the nature of those worlds, or on whether they are physical or spiritual. Based on this, however, the 18th century exposition "Sefer HaB'rit" posits that extraterrestrial creatures exist, and that some may well possess intelligence.

Hindu beliefs of endlessly repeated cycles of life have led to descriptions of multiple worlds in existence. According to Hindu scriptures, there are innumerable universes to facilitate the fulfillment of the separated desires of innumerable living entities. However, the purpose of such creations is to bring back the deluded souls to correct understanding about the purpose of life.

When Christianity spread throughout the West, the Ptolemaic system became very widely accepted, and although the Church never issued any formal pronouncement on the question of alien life, at least tacitly, the idea was aberrant.

The scientific search for extraterrestrial life is still being carried out for the last 40 years both directly and indirectly and nothing has been found so far. We have been emitting radio-transmitted messages out into the universe for decades now in the hopes of communicating with exterrestrial intelliegence?. Unfortunately, we haven’t had any responses.

So we have to ask if the Drake Equation is valid? The Drake equation consists of a large number of probabilities multiplied together. Since each factor is guaranteed to be somewhere between 0 and 1, the result is also guaranteed to be a reasonable-looking number between 0 and 1. Unfortunately, all the probabilities are completely unknown, making the result worse than useless. So, there is no hard scientific evidence that intelligent life exists anywhere beyond Earth.

Warrior

You are correct. The Drake equation is only a theory, but as a theory, it's at least as valid as your theory that we are the only life in the universe.