Man one step closer to God?

[Singularity]

Okay, as I read more and more of your posts I'm increasingly annoyed. Changing RNA into DNA is REALLY FREAKING EASY, all you do is get rid of one of the hydroxyl groups on RNA (which, if you know ANYTHING about chemistry, is an exceedingly simple conversion) and you have DNA, hence the name *deoxy*ribonucleic acid. Changing it back is just as simple.

As a chemist I am highly interested in how you would change a strand of RNA into DNA in a exceedingly simple way and the other way around.
Yes, you can make cDNA and transcribe DNA into RNA but actually changing it?

[HandofDeath]

tl;dr = OSHI- GODBATTLE!!!!11

Quick, save it by replying to my original post!

[Centurion]

tl;dr = OSHI- GODBATTLE!!!!11

Man, ya'll went and fucked this thread up.
It had potential before you slapdicks went and turned it into another run of the mill LOLRELIGION v. SCIENCE shitfest that every forum on the internet has had 1,723 times in it's past.

There is no longer hope for this thread, barring a sudden and unexpected bam__ Ashlee appearence.
All that's missing is a Goddess post.

In b4 she arrives after searching for any posts mentioning her.

[Zerzera]

Now you are just making up big words because you don't have Jesus in your heart.

[HandofDeath]

To you it is as simple as 'mutating RNA into DNA' but if it were that simple it would have been done already.

Okay, as I read more and more of your posts I'm increasingly annoyed. Changing RNA into DNA is REALLY FREAKING EASY, all you do is get rid of one of the hydroxyl groups on RNA (which, if you know ANYTHING about chemistry, is an exceedingly simple conversion) and you have DNA, hence the name *deoxy*ribonucleic acid. Changing it back is just as simple.

[HandofDeath]

For instance if I were to ask you if since the big bang created elements such as hydrogen and helium, where all the denser elements come from and how something as complex as DNA came to be from nothing, you wouldnt have an answer off the top of your head. It's something scientists cant even try to explain now.

Very wrong. These are easily explainable phenomena that occur commonly within the core of every star. It's called nuclear fusion, the combination of atoms into an atom with a higher atomic number. It's highly energetically favorable and produces massive energy (hence the heat and light that we get from the sun.. or are you going to deny that too?).

Basic astronomy students learn about how elements up to iron are produced in stars. Why haven't you?

[HandofDeath]

You dont even know that the universe is 'expanding'. Thats just another theory.

Yep, the progression of light frequency from other stars indicating red shift from the Doppler effect, is COMPLETELY THEORETICAL. Laughable..

The big bang must make a lot of sense to people that cant understand what caused it! Put 2 big heaps of nothing together and it goes boom!

There are complicated energetics and quantum mechanics involved. If you took the time to understand them, you wouldn't be making such a myopic statement.

[HandofDeath]

Oh, and in response to Izor and whoever else he quoted:

Most biologists would surmise that RNA spontaneously formed by atoms and molecules bumping into each other. The Miller-Urey experiment (Source; Wikipedia, though I learned about this originally in my Bio and O.Chem classes) did such a thing, where the researchers imitated the atmospheric conditions thought to be present during the beginning of life, and surprisingly, multiple organic molecules (molecules normally only produced by living organisms) were found in the reaction apparatus after the experiment. The astounding thing is that recent analysis shows that many amino acids were among the organic molecules found -- AAs are the building blocks of proteins.

Moreover, the Wikipedia page goes on to describe subsequent experiments, including one involving the combination of hydrogen cyanide and ammonia (molecules which can be easily present in Earth's atmosphere) to produce one of the building blocks of RNA and DNA, adenine. Other experiments experienced success creating other RNA and DNA precursor molecules as well.

I don't remember what it is exactly offhand, but like you said, the chances of something happening like these are astronomical. But, after you consider the scope of things -- that all of the molecules in the world are constantly smashing into each other, and that they had a VERY long time to be doing that -- the chances are not as much astronomical as they are somewhat likely.

So, there you have it -- the chemical origin of life.

Edit: Oh yeah, and to debunk all you "well think of the CHANCES of this happening, it must have been impossible, there MUST be a God!", to you I say -- not so fast, Samantha. We cannot cognitively conceive of the chances involved here, so how we FEEL about how possible or impossible this theory may be is irrelevant. What DOES matter is the science behind it and the fact that it is logically possible. No amount of feeling or emotion can derail the truth -- that this theory is much more plausible than anything religious quack science has come up with.

Yes, I know that much of what I'm debating here seems to suggest that the only remaining sensible ideology is nihilism. Well, deal with it.

Double Edit: And yes, I *am* suggesting that life was very, very lucky to originate. That makes perfect sense to me. My consciousness, my sense of self, would be utterly different if any of the other millions of sperm my dad ejaculated became me. My life itself is EXTREMELY lucky. Everything that has occurred in my life to bring me to this point has been the result of incredible fortune. If you deny that there was luck involved in the entire process, I'd probably call you crazy.

[HandofDeath]

Yes, by developing a self-propagating RNA species we are one step closer to having the power to create, but let's think about this realistically. What those scientists created, was the most fundamentally basic unit of biology (the ancestral precursor to an organism which can undergo recombinance sexually in order to allow for evolution and adaptation). For it to actually become anything recognizable as what we would call "living" would take billions of years and an extraordinary amount of luck -- or a lot of cheating on the part of the scientists in order for it to mimic life. Although cool, this really isn't as controversial or exciting as some make it out to be.

Like the article says, the discovery is only useful in terms of genetic modeling -- ultimately, so that we can better understand how gene reproduction and selection occurs.

Sigh -- journalists are sensationalizing science once again.

Edit: How annoying, my college doesn't have a subscription to that magazine's online content, so I can't actually view the publication itself.

[Exalt]

I'm not sure how that matters to this thread still.

it doesn't, not sure how your comment mattered either though

back on topic: RNA DNA AND AIDS

[Kolar]

I'm not sure how that matters to this thread still.

[Exalt]

I was making a joke about Wark's slip up on ancient Rome and Greece. I haven't made any historical references though, recorded history only reaches to the 4th millennium. I never said I knew everything.

oral history was around long before that

[Kolar]

I'm a double major at Purdue University... for lo and behold English and History

I do have a passing knowledge for history and probably know a lot more about it than most on these forums. I disagree with most of your implied historic events, but as such, all history is different according to each individual. History according to me and my family along with the experiences I have had in my life would not be the same history as you and your family. Need we not mention rich white European descendants took an avid interest in history, as they were the original ones to actually be able to go to college. Along with that, they molded history into their own agendas, and thus history according to them will not be the same as history according to, lets say for instance, the Islamic or the Isreali people.

But of course, you know far more than I ever could in History and Science. You know everything. My opinions that differ from your own must automatically be wrong, and therefore proves I have no passing knowledge or interest in either Science or History. You are so correct.

I was making a joke about Wark's slip up on ancient Rome and Greece. I haven't made any historical references though, recorded history only reaches to the 4th millennium. I never said I knew everything.

[Exalt]

Who's saying we are? I think we've dismissed that notion on the basis that the supernatural by definition is not objective so there's no way to measure our actions and abilities to that of a deity. We can however make predictions and ideas (theories) which can be tested, proven or disproved. The point being that just because you might not agree with that prediction or result, doesn't have a bearing on whether some phenomenon actually does occurs, or not. Especially since you, Izor and Wark seem to not give even the basic passing interest in science to actively discuss it here (or history for that matter).

I'm a double major at Purdue University... for lo and behold English and History

I do have a passing knowledge for history and probably know a lot more about it than most on these forums. I disagree with most of your implied historic events, but as such, all history is different according to each individual. History according to me and my family along with the experiences I have had in my life would not be the same history as you and your family. Need we not mention rich white European descendants took an avid interest in history, as they were the original ones to actually be able to go to college. Along with that, they molded history into their own agendas, and thus history according to them will not be the same as history according to, lets say for instance, the Islamic or the Isreali people.

But of course, you know far more than I ever could in History and Science. You know everything. My opinions that differ from your own must automatically be wrong, and therefore proves I have no passing knowledge or interest in either Science or History. You are so correct.

[Kolar]

None of you are closer to God, and discovering RNA does not mean you can create life or change it into DNA.

Who's saying we are? I think we've dismissed that notion on the basis that the supernatural by definition is not objective so there's no way to measure our actions and abilities to that of a deity. We can however make predictions and ideas (theories) which can be tested, proven or disproved. The point being that just because you might not agree with that prediction or result, doesn't have a bearing on whether some phenomenon actually does occurs, or not. Especially since you, Izor and Wark seem to not give even the basic passing interest in science to actively discuss it here (or history for that matter).

As much as I always believed that God was our way of explaining what science couldnt, theres just some fundamental things I cant get over, aka what created any matter in the first place. Your big bang theory offers no explanation for this and it never will. When I say 'you or I will never understand this' I say that because it truly is over our heads. People that are true geniuses dont understand it after devoting their whole lives to it. I have resigned myself to this. It's really very easy to act educated on the subject here on forums, where you can pull up another browser and google to research the topic as you're posting, but if we were to have an actual conversation you'd be lost I'm sure. For instance if I were to ask you if since the big bang created elements such as hydrogen and helium, where all the denser elements come from and how something as complex as DNA came to be from nothing, you wouldnt have an answer off the top of your head. It's something scientists cant even try to explain now.

"No one really knows where or how DNA was oringinaly formed. It came from RNA, but where did RNA come from. The odds of a molecule, as complex as a DNA molecule, forming in the natural world is 1 chance in 10^40,000."

I dont know how someone on wikianswers came up with this or if its even true, but its accurate in that the odds would be astronomical of something like this happening and even assuming your big bang was correct in the creation of the universe, how would something as complex as DNA come to exist? Everything has to be so perfect for life to be created. EVERYTHING. From gravity to climate to the planet having water to cellular structure. If the theory of evolution held true, how could something as complex as a flagellum ever come into existence? There are over 40 proteins in the flagellum, and without any of the parts being in the right place, the whole thing is useless. How would something so complex 'naturally' evolve when it would require several very useless parts for a long period of time? Theres just too much we cannot understand. I'm open to hearing from an actual scientist how they think these things have occured, but unless I see some hard evidence I dont think any of us will ever truly know.

The big bang theory doesn't attempt to prove the origin of the universe, it explains its very beginnings and actually flow well with the Judo-Christian idea of creation, that the universe was born in fire and destruction. Similarly the predicted end of the universe follows the same narrative, much to the delight of evangelicals. Like your misconception about the big bang, evolution doesn't attempt to explain the process of how life came to be on Earth, it only explains something very specific, that organisms over millions of years can adapt and have adapted to their surroundings through of process of natural selection. The best species to adapt survives and pass those genetic "traits" to offspring.

When a physicist attempts to prove an equation which may tell us something about the nature of the universe, attempting to conceive of that notion, of it physically being in play is above the human capacity to understand. But if that person attempts to break it apart using math and previously understood physics, that small piece can be understood and fit in within a framework of understanding.

Denser elements are created in the core of high mass stars, when they go supernova they spread their materials out into the universe. Read some stuff by Neil Degrass Tyson, he makes a lot of cosmology simpler to understand.

Science may not offer an answer or the best possible answer there is to every question, it's a never ending pursuit of finding knowledge. That doesn't mean we don't know anything.

Again I don't know much about genetics or biology but I would assume more evidence like life emerging on other planets in our solar system would help. There are about 4 or 5 likely places where it probably did. And what we know life needs to survive and thrive has continually changed over the past 30 years.

Other complex systems like the flagellum have been shown to operate with their constituent parts removed, those pushing that theory have been widely discredited. Read up on the Type III secretory system.