• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Abiogenesis ─ and another biochemical angle

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Science Today reports:

In a study published in the chemistry journal Angewandte Chemie, [chemists at Scripps Research] demonstrated that a simple compound called diamidophosphate (DAP), which was plausibly present on Earth before life arose, could have chemically knitted together tiny DNA building blocks called deoxynucleosides into strands of primordial DNA.​

Why does that matter? >More here<.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Science Today reports:

In a study published in the chemistry journal Angewandte Chemie, [chemists at Scripps Research] demonstrated that a simple compound called diamidophosphate (DAP), which was plausibly present on Earth before life arose, could have chemically knitted together tiny DNA building blocks called deoxynucleosides into strands of primordial DNA.​

Why does that matter? >More here<.

I don't know, because that is a subjective question. What matters, is what matters to somebody based on their individual interpretation.

Now it matters if you choose to use science, but that requires you to choose to do so. Now how it matters otherwise could depend on how you understand science and the world as such. Further it could matter in practice if it could lead to a practical application in regards to your everyday life.

To me it matters as: Meh, that is somewhat interesting, but not that big of a deal.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Science Today reports:

In a study published in the chemistry journal Angewandte Chemie, [chemists at Scripps Research] demonstrated that a simple compound called diamidophosphate (DAP), which was plausibly present on Earth before life arose, could have chemically knitted together tiny DNA building blocks called deoxynucleosides into strands of primordial DNA.​

Why does that matter? >More here<.
That is quite the paper. I doubt if creationists appreciate what it means.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That is quite the paper. I doubt if creationists appreciate what it means.
In my days on Beliefnet, from time to time I used to ask the YECs whether, if science created life from non-life in the lab, they'd give up being YECs. And not once did I get a straight answer. It is a problem for them if life doesn't have miraculous beginnings.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
In my days on Beliefnet, from time to time I used to ask the YECs whether, if science created life from non-life in the lab, they'd give up being YECs. And not once did I get a straight answer. It is a problem for them if life doesn't have miraculous beginnings.

At least, God-inspired miraculous beginnings. There's something of a miracle in scientific discovery.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
In my days on Beliefnet, from time to time I used to ask the YECs whether, if science created life from non-life in the lab, they'd give up being YECs. And not once did I get a straight answer. It is a problem for them if life doesn't have miraculous beginnings.
I asked this question as well. I did get an answer.

That answer was "it would prove that life is created".
The person I was talking to, really did not understand what it means to conduct an experiment under controlled conditions. I tried explaining it, by pointing out how the response was similar to saying that ice at the north pole had to be "created" because "freezers".

But alas................
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I asked this question as well. I did get an answer.

That answer was "it would prove that life is created".
The person I was talking to, really did not understand what it means to conduct an experiment under controlled conditions. I tried explaining it, by pointing out how the response was similar to saying that ice at the north pole had to be "created" because "freezers".

But alas................
NOT freezers, you say? Now you've got me thinking ...
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
In my days on Beliefnet, from time to time I used to ask the YECs whether, if science created life from non-life in the lab, they'd give up being YECs. And not once did I get a straight answer. It is a problem for them if life doesn't have miraculous beginnings.

I've seen some argue that if life was created in a lab, it would just prove that intelligence was required for life to get going.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Science Today reports:

In a study published in the chemistry journal Angewandte Chemie, [chemists at Scripps Research] demonstrated that a simple compound called diamidophosphate (DAP), which was plausibly present on Earth before life arose, could have chemically knitted together tiny DNA building blocks called deoxynucleosides into strands of primordial DNA.​

Why does that matter? >More here<.

Two big takeaways:

1. This suggests that a mixture of RNA and DNA may have been involved in the first living things, as opposed to a purely RNA world.

2. This may be a way to eliminate some of the enzymes used in PCR, thereby making it easier to use.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I asked this question as well. I did get an answer.

That answer was "it would prove that life is created".
The person I was talking to, really did not understand what it means to conduct an experiment under controlled conditions. I tried explaining it, by pointing out how the response was similar to saying that ice at the north pole had to be "created" because "freezers".

But alas................

Beat me to it. :)
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I came across the same story at EurekAlert! about a week ago.

I particularly like;

The finding also nudges the field of origin-of-life chemistry away from the hypothesis that has dominated it in recent decades: The "RNA World" hypothesis posits that the first replicators were RNA-based, and that DNA arose only later as a product of RNA life forms.​

It is hardly the final Gotcha in the polemic with creationism, but every nudge helps and it's interesting nonetheless.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Hmmm... if it truly wasn't a big deal to you... then why comment to that effect at all?

Because it was placed in religious debates. It wasn't placed in the sub-forum of science, so we are in effect not doing just science in this thread. We are fighting over for lack of better words: Reason, logic and evidence. As always. :D
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Because it was placed in religious debates. It wasn't placed in the sub-forum of science, so we are in effect not doing just science in this thread. We are fighting over for lack of better words: Reason, logic and evidence. As always. :D
So it is a big deal to you from a religious perspective?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
So it is a big deal to you from a religious perspective?
No, because I don't know what religion is. There are 2 camps within science and I am both religious and not according to science.
In another sense it is not a big deal, because it won't change how people believe as for their world views.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
No, because I don't know what religion is. There are 2 camps within science and I am both religious and not according to science.
In another sense it is not a big deal, because it won't change how people believe as for their world views.
But I feel you understand that, like some of the revelations surrounding evolution, it has the potential to change people's minds. And I believe that scares you. So I believe the reason you replied to the effect that it "isn't a big deal" is in order to try and get others to think as you do, so that the results are downplayed, and the impact of any possible revelations coming along this line of scientific inquiry are minimized. In the end, I feel that your little "meh, no big deal" will have even less effect in the effort to "change how people believe as for their world views." It's you trying to confirm the biases of anyone anti-science so you can all high-five each other about the maintenance of your ignorance.

This is all just information being shared. To purposefully go to the lengths to reply "meh, no big deal" with some amount of "this is what I believe" fanfare - that smacks of someone with an agenda. Just peruse the information and move on if it is not of any importance to you. Any time I comment, I completely understand and admit that it was because I felt the topic important enough to do so. When I don't comment? That's when I truly felt a thing was not important.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
But I feel you understand that, like some of the revelations surrounding evolution, it has the potential to change people's minds. And I believe that scares you. So I believe the reason you replied to the effect that it "isn't a big deal" is in order to try and get others to think as you do, so that the results are downplayed, and the impact of any possible revelations coming along this line of scientific inquiry are minimized. In the end, I feel that your little "meh, no big deal" will have even less effect in the effort to "change how people believe as for their world views." It's you trying to confirm the biases of anyone anti-science so you can all high-five each other about the maintenance of your ignorance.

This is all just information being shared. To purposefully go to the lengths to reply "meh, no big deal" with some amount of "this is what I believe" fanfare - that smacks of someone with an agenda. Just peruse the information and move on if it is not of any importance to you. Any time I comment, I completely understand and admit that it was because I felt the topic important enough to do so. When I don't comment? That's when I truly felt a thing was not important.

I am an atheist and my God is nature in a naturalistic sense
 
Top