(commenting on an article about the synthesis of one of the components of RNA in a laboratory setting}
Nobeliefrequired: check the bible, God specifically said 120 years max.
Everyone is missing a very big detail: this experiment created a COMPONENT of RNA, not even a single molecule of RNA. You evolutionists need to realize you have your own religion: Evolution. How else you explain how this reaction would have to be repeated hundreds of times, creating hundreds of different proteins, and then they have to assemble themselves in perfect order (violating the law of entropy). All this has to happen JUST TO CREATE DNA, then of course you also have to form the DOZENS of other structures REQUIRED for a SINGLE CELL ORGANISM. Your have to throw your brains in the trash to believe that was plausible.
43 comments
Amongst quadrillions of naturally evolved protein keystones across the goddamn planet over billions of years one WILL form something that is a DNA
Amongst quadrillions of naturally evolved proteins one WILL form something that is a RNA
Amongst limitless numbers of naturally evolved protein keystones one WILL form something that is a cell...
etc etc
Yeah, since we've only managed to partially explain an event that occured several billion years ago, *we cant even agree if shakespeare was one man afew hundred years ago* the only possible answer is god. Gotta love religious 'logic'.
Evolution is still no religion. A religion has rules to live by, often a deity to worship, rituals to follow. Evolution is a scientific theory on how life emerged and constantly develops on this planet. There are no rules, no deity, no rituals. Not even any hymns or songs, no holidays. Just a silent constant progress, regardless of any "beliefs" in it.
@fundiesRtehlulz
A couple of weeks ago, someone claiming to be 130 years old died. The actual age was in dispute but there's no denial that she was of an advanced age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahan_Dosova
There's a whole heaping pile of science fail here, but the one that really gets me pissed off is the entropy.
These Entropy Fails are getting to be really tiresome. Basic thermodynamics, including the second law, should be a goddamn required subject at high school, not reserved exclusively for physics and engineering graduates - it's an essential concept in grasping how pretty much everything in the entire universe functions, from the heat death itself, through global warming and the inevitable fossil fuel crisis, right down to fucking domestic fridges and automobiles!
<fundietranslator>Not real, Not Real, NOT REAL, NOT REAL!, NOT REAL!, NOT REAL! </fundietranslator>
I thought the days of our years numbered threescore and ten.
Plus it's two components, and we already know that RNA assembles easily with all of them in the right situations.
Good thing DNA had a really long time to form, then.
I am so sick of people using stupidity to back up their faulty beliefs.
"...and then they have to assemble themselves in perfect order (violating the law of entropy).
Doesn't it just rip yer knitting when science-hating fundies try to use evidence and facts discovered by scientists to try to refute science?! "The scientific evidence is wrong!!!!1! (When it suits me or I'm too stupid and blinkered to understand what it means)".
Morons.
Ah yes, I see. In order to sound more scientific the fundtard has pulled out the entropy card. Little do they know, since they never bother to do any research, that instead of making them sound smarter and making their argument more valid that it in fact has the opposite effect.
Summary: Fundatrd using second law of thermodymics in an argument= Automatic Fail.
Haha, try this on:
"Everyone is missing a very big detail: this experiment created a COMPONENT of A CAR, not even a single CAR. You CARists need to realize you have your own religion: CARism. How else you explain how this "PROCESS" would have to be repeated hundreds of times, creating hundreds of different COMPONENTS, and then they have to assemble themselves in perfect order (violating the law of entropy). All this has to happen JUST TO CREATE A CAR, then of course you also have to form the DOZENS of other structures REQUIRED for a TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. Your have to throw your brains in the trash to believe that was plausible.
Over millions and or billions of years however, it is entirely plausible, nay likely, that someone as stupid as theMage would come to be.
I read somewhere a few years ago it was thought very unlikely someone could live past 130, so that old lady pegged out at just the point one might expect the oldest ever person would do. Apparently a 1946 passport gave her birth year as 1879, just 20 years after the publication of Origins of Species.
I thought the God botherers believed Biblical figures lived for centuries?
*sigh*
They don't understand the experiment.
They don't understand what a religion is.
They don't understand entropy.
They don't understand biology.
They don't understand probability.
Yet they want us to take them seriously?
We all understand creating DNA isn't possible...yet. You know in the 1940s transplanting organs and manned space flights weren't possible. In the 1700s vaccines were impossible. People need to explore the impossible, break it down step by step, to make progress. You've already thrown your brains in the trash as your opinion is to only study that which is known, that is, to stagnate.
So, how big, exactly, is a single molecule of RNA? The nature of DNA and RNA is such that they can be functional even in very short pieces.
And fucking quit it with the second law already.
We know RNAs can catalyse their own duplication, that they can spontaneously make copies of themselves, and that they can spontaneously self-assemble from free bases.
"Ah!" says your average god-of-the-gaps fundie, "But where did the bases come from?"
As this team have just shown, two of the four bases can occur spontaneously in the reducing conditions of the prebiotic Earth. If the other two can be shown to occur spontaneously in realistic conditions, then it will have been demonstrated that simple chemistry is sufficient to take you from chemical soup to RNA polymers.
This won't prove that is what happened, but it will show it is quite possible. Not that I think for a moment this will shut up the "no evidence", "2LOT", "too complex" brigade.
OK. I've retrieved my brains from the trash. Why, oh why did I put my trust in science?
OK. Let's examine the biblical alternative. Hmmm! Yes, I see. Interesting. Hmmm! OH NO!
Blast, it's trashcan time for my brains again.
"Everyone is missing a very big detail: this experiment created a COMPONENT of RNA, not even a single molecule of RNA."
From the original article:
"However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA’s component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA,"
You fundies need to realise you have your own reality: fundieism. How else do you explain that even after you are told something hundreds of time you still don't get it. You brain must be made of trash for you to be so stupid.
"How else you explain how this reaction would have to be repeated hundreds of times, creating hundreds of different proteins "
Dude ... RNA doesn't contain any proteins. The experimenters are pursuing the "RNA World" hypothesis, which is the notion that the first living organisms were self-replicating strands of RNA. Certain RNA molecules can act as catalysts in the same way proteins do -- they're called "ribozymes." You could theoretically have an organizm composed entirely of RNA with no proteins or DNA, and still have it be able to grow and replicate (albeit less efficiently and effectively than a protein-based organism).
The longest unambiguously documented lifespan is that of Jeanne Calment of France (18751997), who died at age 122 years and 164 days.
That's more than 120 years old.
Why do you continue to act like you have any clue what you're talking about? You're a fundie, you know next to nothing about science.
1. Multiple different proteins can be created from one DNA or RNA strand due to splicing.
2. Laws of entropy don't apply. A life form isn't a closed system.
3. Organisms probably came before DNA. One idea with a lot of support is that RNA was the basis of genetics before DNA, owing that it is easier to create proteins with RNA as it can catalyze itself.
Maybe if you read a genetics textbook instead of a Bible you'd be aware of these things.
You know, it does sound ridiculous, going in with a fairly standard set of common sense. And your idea sounds more reasonable, since it deals in familiar things. Not because you're spiritual and we're materialistic, or because you're superstitious.
It's because your skepticism is founded in a "peasant materialism," that deals with what one personally can verify and extrapolate from one's own life. It's the kind of thinking that allows maggots to be born from the rotting of meat and demands angels as beings with actual forms. It's been the normal way to think for most of everyone, for most of always. Most superstition and religion deals with this form of materialism, not the kind of spiritual abstraction developed only by educated theists in advanced societies. It has its charms.
It's just sometimes wrong. Modern materialism according to the scientific method achieves conclusions counter to common sense all the time. And to people whose common sense has adapted to that, it doesn't seem as strange as it does from outside. I realign my common sense regularly, just to check that I understand where everyone's coming from. You should at least try to see things from the RNA-makers' perspective.
caps lock fail 1st off.
2nd plz lern moore
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.