Has Science done it again? Is the "Science can't explain life" arguement dead?
Scientists recently have, for the first time, created life in a lab. Scientists in the UK have made Ribonucleitides, the building block for Rna, in a lab starting with nothing but base chemicals. This is the first step to showing how life could have started on our planet by becoming a self replicating molecule from the primordial soup. Here's an article from Nature.
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.471.html
Scientists in Japan have also recently discovered that impacts of great force, like that of an asteroid into the ocean, can fuse elements to create organic molecules in the impact. The study goes on to describe how these organic molecules would survive the blast zone by being quickly dissolved in the primordial oceans seeding life. Here's an article from USAToday.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2008-12-08-asteroid-collisions_N.htm
Yes, Science for the win!
Side Score: 14
|
 |
No, I am not convinced
Side Score: 14
|
|
|
|
|
This is the newer, badass version Miller-Urey experiment. Cheers to science. As for the question: if science "can't explain life", then why is it that so many organized religions already claim to know the answer? Let's take a second to define science. Your career is based on reliable performance and credibility. You can only submit a query based from previous knowledge in the form of a testable hypothesis. Then, you will test this theory with the utmost precision, several times. Then after you publish your findings, then science will test and scrutinize the hell out of it several times in THEIR laboratories. And only THEN is your statement or conclusion a valid explanation or theory. I hope we can understand that science is the most reliable source we have. Where are the headlines? Announcements? Shouldn't we be "fair and balanced"? .....america?......guys? I can't fathom how many newer, more obvious implications will arise from observational science before people here in America stop looking to backless religions. Side: Yes, Science for the win!
|
Obviously life can't be explained in a few experiments. There are several of them. These 2 new developments in tandem with experiments in the past should collectively prove life's formation. We have: 1. Replicated, mapped, created (in various parts with relatively simple methods to that of most technology today), anything-else-ed life in various forms. 2. There is an extensive fossil record with plenty of transitional fossils. 3. We've documented all of the necessary processes of evolution in action and seen natural selection take its course countless times. You all forget, experiments like this take place in what represents a puddle or so in a few days of testing, imagine the probabilities involved with the surface area of the ENTIRE GLOBE over EONS. Seriously. Guys. It's like Wheel of Fortune where there's one letter left, just solve the damn puzzle. Side: Yes, Science for the win!
I don't think Pyg (and Cerin for that matter) was objecting to evolutionary arguments. He was more saying that we can't draw such a full conclusion from limited data. Just a call for logical parsimony. We can't prove that life was created in such a way. We can only prove that we can create life in a lab setting. Seriously. Guys. It's like Wheel of Fortune where there's one letter left, just solve the damn puzzle. Although that is the phrase of the year. I'm gonna have to use that. Side: Yes, Science for the win!
1
point
1
point
2
points
|
