Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Discovering Our Origins

Here are two really awesome articles about our origins:

Protocells and the Origin of Life

The Big Bang Machine


anton said...

The guys who wrote Genesis got it all wrong. There was a SUPERGOD!!!

For my "tongue in cheek" Challenge, you may like to visit my site.


Frank said...

Funny!!! This is another example of modern scientist and the people that write articles about science going into an experiment with preconceived notions. When I look at the first article something jumps out like fireworks at the Olympics. THEY HAVE NOT DONE WHAT YOU SAY THEY WILL DO YET! Why not wait till they get this done then write your article claiming that you have an answer for anything? Let along that you "BUSTED!" Genensis. Also, I don’t know if any of you in your rush to ordain this presupposition that life started in one way or another caught that there is a major problem with this work that would invalidate it for a proof of how life started. That is they are going to introduce RNA or DNA to get replication of this new “life form.” If a scientist really wanted to make some news let them show how all the little machines that just make the DNA/RNA work came about. Not getting a base DNA/RNA model but getting the things that make DNA/RNA work. Since these machines had to be in place before DNA/RNA could exist.

AIGBusted said...

Shows how much you know Frank. In my biology class I learned that there is no certain definition of life. There are several characteristics that make up what we call "life". These protocells can absorb nutrients, grow, and reproduce. Under a loose defintion of life, they are alive. Under a tight definition, they are close, but not quite there since they need to be able to adapt to their surroundings (sweating, panting, and so on are examples of adapting to your surroundings).

Also, RNA and DNA do not need "little machines" to come about. Scientists have generated all the nucleotides necessary to make RNA, and have figured out how they join up. More information, with references, may be found here:



(Remove the space)

Frank said...

I don't want to get into a mud slinging session, so I won't respond in kind. However, I don't know what your biology teacher was teaching but I know for a fact that Harvard School of Medicine has a definition of life. Also you can just type "LIFE" into Wikipedia or dictionary.com and you will see that your biology teacher did not do their job.

You did not answer my assertion that this article is a rush to publish before anything has happened."

As for my "little machines" comment I was trying to not be too technical, mainly because I don't remember the names of them. But I will describe them for you. There are things (that work like "little machines") that float around a cell and they are responsible for pulling apart strands of DNA and then taking the correct sequence of nucleotides and attaching them to RNA to make a duplicate of the original DNA strand. All I was saying that in order for evolution to work then these little machines would have had to be invented through trial and error in order to get them to do their jobs correctly. But they could not have evolved because what ever original DNA strand that existed would not be able to be made till these little machines were evolved. With that said until these or any scientist can show spontaneous generation and reproduction of DNA they will just be recreating something that already exist. Which would destroy this article.

I hope your response won't be like so many so called scientist that say "DNA came from space aliens, that is how it got here and works now." If so I would say your god (idol of man via science) is better at giving you faith than any church I have ever heard of

AIGBusted said...

No sir, No sir. There is no universally agreed upon definition of life. Even the Wikipedia article says it. Here is why defining life is difficult: Is reproduction something that a thing must do to be alive? If yes, then are sterile mules alive?

Furthermore, Dr. Szostak has published his experiments on protocells, which might very well be called alive:

"Template-directed synthesis of a genetic polymer in a model protocell"
Sheref S. Mansy, Jason P. Schrum, Mathangi Krishnamurthy, Sylvia Tobé, Douglas A. Treco, Jack W. Szostak

Frank said...

AIG, I looked for the Harvard School of Med website to see if I could put me hands on their definition of life, sorry I can't. But here is just the first definition from Dictionary.com:

the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

As for you question about Mules. I take it that you know that a mule is a mix between a donkey and horse? And as such it is not something that would happen on its own, I think it would qualify as an abomination. And since this creation was allowed to come about it is not allowed to continue. If (brace yourself) God had wanted breeds to intermix I think you would see Pea-Keys (Peacocks and Monkeys) walking or flying around today. Wait all the Monkeys have evolved into humans. Try Gold-Arks (gold fish and sharks). I am just being funny with you for a min. But I hope you see the point. Life is special and very delicate so, yes a mule is alive and no it won't replicate its self. That is against the Genesis rules.

As for you Dr. Szostak comment I love the way scientist and those who worship them talk. If you look on the Science channel or Discovery on most of the shows you will hear words like: probably and most likely. Which is why I find it very interesting that you use the phrase "might very well be". Is this a case of trying to cover as many bases as possible? I graduated in "96" with a Civil Engineering degree and I know the scientific method and how it works. Lord knows I took enough Biology, Chemistry and Physics to learn something about true science and wishful thinking.

My last question is: Do you know if YOU are alive?

Jesus said that "He did not come to destroy life but to give life abundantly." You don't have to thought your brains in the trash to be a Christian. But some of this vain searching is only going to get you no where and ultimately when you die you will find yourself in Hell for ever. But I plead with you to please open your mind don't hide behind your view of science as your salvation. Please go to this site and listen to some of the below topics it will help you see.


Please don't be closed minded any more go see please.

AIGBusted said...

Hi Frank,

The definition of life you found sounds fine to me. The protocells Dr. Szostak has created so far have the ability to reproduce and grow, but they do not have the ability to adapt (to the environment), as I mentioned earlier. I don't see this as a major obstacle, I think more experiments need to be done to show how these original protocells evolved the ability to adapt to their surroundings.

As for my comment about "very well might be called life": I am not speculating, I am saying that no one has a hard and fast definition of life, as the Discovery Channel (see a recent post of mine on the subject), My Biology Teacher, and any good biology book will tell you (Try something besides Dictionary.com). Something that replicates with heredity and has metabolism qualifies, at the very minimum, as protolife.

Now, if you have studied science, you should know that nothing is ever established with complete certainty. Another science teacher of mine taught me that we should always be open minded: For instance, maybe a law of physics has exceptions we do not know about. Not likely, but we should be willing to change if enough evidence comes our way.

In closing, I want to say that it is awfully presumptious of you to think that I am "close minded". I was once a Christian, and upon doing further research and challenging that world view, I changed my mind. I even have a website about atheism:


Frank said...

Ryan, I have not forgotten about you I have just been slammed at work. I will review your website and get back with you.

AIGBusted said...


That is fine with me. In the Section "Arguments for God" there is a page on the arguments concerning Jesus. If you find any errors on the site, please let me know, but do include some references for the claims that you make.


oh honestly said...

It's Harvard Medical School. A Harvard School of Medicine doesn't exist. And I believe NASA has a working definition of life as "a self-replicating chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution." But that definition may have evolved since 2006.