Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is interesting to read that phosphorus, which was previously assumed to be required to have replicate RNA, that other processes may have worked.
"So Segrè and his team applied computational systems biology – a theoretical approach that uses mathematical models to explore diverse branching pathways of biochemical reactions – to identify a set of eight phosphate-free compounds that would have been abundant in our ancient oceans.
They then applied an algorithm to simulate primitive metabolism based on these chemicals, which included iron-sulphides and sulphur-containing compounds called thioesters, allowing them to evaluate how a bunch of different reactions might have occurred.
The researchers found that a core network of 315 reactions involving 260 metabolites could support the production of a vast range of complex organic compounds necessary for life, including amino acids and carboxylic acids.
Since early biochemistry failed to leave much evidence in the way of fossils, we're left to put together what pieces we can with mathematical models such as these.
While this isn't proof-positive of a phosphate-free kick-off to life, it does add evidence to the possibility that life emerged from chemistry most organisms no longer rely on."
It's for you to Judge, Mensa, but despite Evolution really NOT being the basis of atheism, it is a major factor in doubting the reliability of the Bible and that IS a major factor in atheism.
It of course can't be denied that we atheists find ourselves referring to evolution (or what falls under the heading of "Evolution" in Theist - especially creationist -terms, which is anything that contradicts the Bible) as the scientific basis for our rejecting various religious claims, and so evolution is -like it or not - a massive debate in the religion/atheism struggle.
It can't be denied either that Darwin has become something of an Icon of atheism. To me, too.
And the last ditch theist defence against Evolution, when they can't deny natural selection, speciation, transitional forms and the evidence for Old earth anymore is -
......
"You Can't Explain How Life Started.."
...
In fact we can, hypothetically and plausibly. There is even some indirect ( ) evidence for it, but there is not the hard evidence. Or not yet. And so Abiogenesis is a Gap For God, and still a fair one.
Thus any closing of that gap is really quite important to atheism, and relevant to the forum. I would be sorry to not be able to discuss that here.
Thank you. There is a fairly reasonable concensus that Life could have started in this order
Exploding stars (proving a billions year -old universe) add biochemicals (and heavy elements) to the existing mix of hydrogen/oxygen -water -carbon that fills our universe
earth is smothered in carbon, water, biochemicals. Chemical evolution helps to explain how non -living materials can develop complexity and tend to become more complex than less.
Then a miracle occurs. . biochemicals begin to replicate.
the replicating bioforms become more complex, eventually becoming an organism surrounded by a jelly and membrane.
First cells found in fossil form. From then on we have fossil evidence of evolution.
So is the miracle explainable in natural terms, or mustha goddunnit?
The experiments (as I recall) with amino -acids suggested the the ancestor of DNA (RNA) could have come about naturally. That linked article adds some suggestions about how this might occur.
The "Gap for God" thus is the question of life from non life - that means how non replicating complex bio -compounds can develop replication. Once that is explained, the entire sequence of evolution is explained.
Then the only gap for god is who made all the Potential for Nothing to become Something and started it off, and (at the other end), human consciousness..perhaps
NDE's is a non -evolutionary question of course, it is a miracle-claim question, in effect.
But those DO fall outside the topic.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-07-2017 at 05:22 AM..
I understand what you all have said. This is the rule we posted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
As of January 2, 2017,Science threads are not to be started in any of the Religion & Spirituality forums.
Our reasoning is based on the fact that we have had two recent threads dealing with Science in Religion and Scientific Proof of God. Both threads developed into discussions that had virtually nothing to do with Religion or Spirituality (the reason we have these forums).
Another reason is that the local forum rules for the Science & Technology forum prohibits posting about Religion, so it is deemed inappropriate for the Religion forums to host Science threads. That rule is quoted here:
This is the Science forum, not Religion forum.
Now, here's the kicker. If people post things that are scientifically incorrect, this rule is not to be construed to prohibit people from responding. For example, if a discussion about creation results in a comment claiming the evolution scientists claim that evolution proves life originated from goop, this rule is not to prohibit people with knowledge of science from posting corrections. This is NOT permission to take a thread off in a science direction. Answer with a post or two. If the thread isn't back on topic, please report rather than breaking the spirit of this rule.
Don't turn this into an excuse to report occasional single comments that are pertinent to discussions. This is to keep our forums focused on Religion and Spirituality by avoiding threads primarily focused on Science topics. Remember that Science topics are welcome in the Science and Technology forum.
Thank you for your cooperation.
The Religion & Spirituality Moderators june 7th
Miss Blue
Woodrow LI
mensaguy
We did that because of the number of posts completely unrelated to Religion or Spirituality and the number of reported posts at a time that we had at least 3 active threads about evolution.
This thread looks like it was started as a Science thread with no direct relevance to Religion or Spirituality, or even indirect relation to Agnosticism or Atheism.
How are you going to make this thread comply with the posting rule?
Since you put it like that, I can't think of a way. While there is a knock -on to the evolution debate which is relevant to the atheism/theism debate, such a discussion would be evolutionary biology and, thus, science.
As the bible may be one of the main sources that informs the life of a theist, science tends to be the main source that informs the life of an atheist. Without wide reference to science, the field left open for discussion for atheists here is very much narrowed.
You might as well ask Christians to have a board where they are only scantly able to talk about the bible or Jesus.
While I understand the need for guidelines over on the main forum, an atheists mind is free and open to anything OTHER than religion or belief in deities... ie we have a whole universe out there open for us to question and explore and it is good thing to have a voice here where we can discuss these issues.
The new guidelines, if they are to be applied to atheism as well as theism leaves us with very little left to talk about. I do understand that the guidelines are in the main aimed at the opening of threads but still, it makes one wary of sitting typing anything with the knowledge that it might be deleted, hence the recent exodus of many atheists from the forum.
If nothing else, the link provided is more food for thought that a group of like minded people here on this forum might find interesting and while I haven't had time to absorb the contents of the article yet, I will give it some thought. Thanks to the OP for providing it.
The new guidelines are a significant factor (albeit not the only one) in the overall decline in participation by many formerly active, interesting, intelligent members.
Over the course of the past few months, the R&S section of CD has gone from an interesting, dynamic, university-like forum to an over-regulated, boring, kindergarten class.
It's sad. And a shame that the PTB seem content with the current status quo. I guess it makes certain jobs easier.
I understand what you all have said. This is the rule we posted:
We did that because of the number of posts completely unrelated to Religion or Spirituality and the number of reported posts at a time that we had at least 3 active threads about evolution.
This thread looks like it was started as a Science thread with no direct relevance to Religion or Spirituality, or even indirect relation to Agnosticism or Atheism.
How are you going to make this thread comply with the posting rule?
The problem is, there is an intersection of religion and science, at least when discussing the origins of life. Over in the science forum there are not as many concerned about the impact of the religious on the issue, whereas in the R&S/Atheist forum, there are many who DO wish to discuss this, and the impact it has on other religious matters.
So, the topic is relevant, but apparently the new rule makes it not a topic that can be discussed here. I (we) appreciate that you have entered into a discussion on this, and for now, have left the topic open. I was conscious on not posting it into the general R&S section, but here, it seems there is a general acceptance that it is a legitimate topic that has validity for discussion.
Perhaps the rule can be amended to allowing these topics to be allowed here on the Atheist sub-forum?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) evidence for it, but there is not the hard evidence. Or not yet. And so Abiogenesis is a Gap For God, and still a fair one.
. biochemicals begin to replicate.