46% of Americans believe human beings were created in their present form within the past 10,000 years

Quote from Byebye : Even though we don't know exactly how "life" began, it would have to be after protein formation right? To my knowledge amino acids and proteins do not self-replicate. You said to scope the problem to biological evolution. I just want clarification to what that scope entails I'm asking you because you seem pretty informed on the subject and would like your opinion. I was taught the primordial soup in high school. Is abiogenesis a part of the theory of evolution?

Prions, or misfolded proteins do self replicate. Madcow disease is caused by a prion. And retroviruses do not adhere to the standard definition of the flow of genetic information which is using dna>rna>proteins. They use an enzyme reverse transcriptase to go from rna>dna>rna>proteins. There are also other ways that go against the central dogma of molecular biology.

Thanks for your reply. I enjoy reading your posts on the subject.

Quote from darkfrog : Not necessarily. Proteins are most likely the result of evolution, not a precursor.

Do you mean that there were protein-less life forms that assisted in the formation of proteins? Just want to confirm, I've never heard of this idea before and wonder if you would like to speculate on how that life form would/could work

Quote from darkfrog : It appears that nucleic acids bases and other organic molecules are abundant in space. There are also researchers that have found ways that these bases could form naturally here on earth. However, assuming that RNA or some other nucleic acid was the first replicating molecule IMO, is sill assuming too much. RNA and/or DNA may have in fact formed on the back of another molecule of yet unknown type. Sort of like seeing the pyramids and wondering how could such a structure be built, while ignoring the fact that the scaffolding that allowed it is now missing. We may never find the actual scaffolding that allowed life to begin, except by a surreptitious accident, but I am confident that we will find one or more ways life could have began.

Organic molecules in space would still have to be formed at some point. Do you think it is a cop-out to hold off deciding on abiogenesis until we do find one or more ways life could have began? <I need to see it to believe it argument>

Quote from darkfrog : Abiogenesis uses the fact that life formed and applies the idea of Darwinian evolution to look for probable events that led to life. However, evolutionary theory can stand on it's own whether it began naturally or even if life was magically created by The Flying Spaghetti Monster or the magic being of your choice.

My original question was "is abiogenesis a part of the evolutionary theory". From your response I take it to be that you believe that they are separate since you stated that it can stand on its own. Sorry if I am misrepresenting you

Quote from Byebye : Can you provide links regarding ribnucleotide synthesis? i want to read more about how they did it. Why are you bringing religion into the reply. I believe I have only asked science questions. no?

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience...cleotides/

I include religion because EV is implying the faith in science is the same as the faith in religion. The two are nothing alike. One (belief that the universe started with the big bang) is a understood lack of knowledge filled with admitted conjecture. The other is a feeling that there is a greater being that created the world, and is not open to revision.

Quote from Slvrshot : Prions, or misfolded proteins do self replicate. Madcow disease is caused by a prion.

Sorry, I'm not too familiar with Prions, so I just looked it up on wikipedia. Please let me know if I am reading this incorrectly

Quote from Wikepedia : Prions propagate by transmitting a misfolded protein state. When a prion enters a healthy organism, it induces existing, properly folded proteins to convert into the disease-associated, prion form; the prion acts as a template to guide the misfolding of more protein into prion form.

To me this doesn't mean self-replication. It means it converts properly folded proteins to misfolded proteins which means to replicate it needs a supply of corresponding proteins (so replication, but not self-replication)

Quote from Slvrshot : And retroviruses do not adhere to the standard definition of the flow of genetic information which is using dna>rna>proteins. They use an enzyme reverse transcriptase to go from rna>dna>rna>proteins. There are also other ways that go against the central dogma of molecular biology.

intereesting, but doesn't answer the original question of what life looked like when it began (before protein formation or not)

Quote from Xygonn : http://www.wired.com/wiredscience...cleotides/ I include religion because EV is implying the faith in science is the same as the faith in religion. The two are nothing alike. One (belief that the universe started with the big bang) is a understood lack of knowledge filled with admitted conjecture. The other is a feeling that there is a greater being that created the world, and is not open to revision.

Thanks for the link. I'll have to look into this more (I'm not going to pretend to understand it in 5 minutes). I didn't want to mention religion in my replies, because it tends to muddy the waters too much and I honestly just want information. Do you think "admitted conjecture" should be taught in schools? or only things that have been repeatable and verified?

Quote from Byebye : Thanks for the link. I'll have to look into this more (I'm not going to pretend to understand it in 5 minutes). I didn't want to mention religion in my replies, because it tends to muddy the waters too much and I honestly just want information. Do you think "admitted conjecture" should be taught in schools? or only things that have been repeatable and verified?

Admitted conjecture is fine so long as it is eventually testable and is not presented as the only possible explanation. AFAIK, string theory is not taught in public schools. Religion is fine to teach at seminary school, just like string theory is taught at physics departments. I do not think theology should be taught in physics, and I don't think string theory is necessary learning for men of the cloth.

In terms of an "intelligent designer" I'm much more open to a "deterministic progression of life forms" theory. As many have said before me, there is no need to invoke a designer. Just like chemicals react in a certain way, you need not invoke an "intelligent designer" (that you cannot test for) that designed the elements to react the way they do.

Most interesting to me, on the topic of evolution, is that Lamarckian evolution is experiencing a sort of surge of evidence and testing. Google "epigenetic inheritance". It used to be fairly well accepted that Lamarck was wrong.

Creationists literally arguing that evolution is wrong because "life cant spontaneously begin" even though the theory of evolution doesnt deal with the origin of life?? yep... as always.

Quote from Dr. J : I've said essentially the same before.... on both "sides" there is a leap of FAITH where you just take on the assumption that things happened as so, with no evidence. With Evolution, that's the point where life spontaneously just popped into existence.... even the biggest Evolutionists (or rather, anti-Creationists is how they come off) will say that it cannot be proven how life first started, it "must be" but won't acknowledge that that leap is indeed FAITH.

Wrong.
Abiogenesis and biological evolution are not the same thing. Stop trying to blur the two.

Quote from Xygonn : Admitted conjecture is fine so long as it is eventually testable and is not presented as the only possible explanation. AFAIK, string theory is not taught in public schools. Religion is fine to teach at seminary school, just like string theory is taught at physics departments. I do not think theology should be taught in physics, and I don't think string theory is necessary learning for men of the cloth. In terms of an "intelligent designer" I'm much more open to a "deterministic progression of life forms" theory. As many have said before me, there is no need to invoke a designer. Just like chemicals react in a certain way, you need not invoke an "intelligent designer" (that you cannot test for) that designed the elements to react the way they do.

big bang/primordial soup are not repeatable yet (big bang probably isn't testable). At my high school they were presented as the only explanations. The "proof" that Intelligent Design presents is really gaps in science right now concluding to a God of the Gaps. What do you think if these gaps are taught in science class without drawing any conclusions to any God.

Quote from Xygonn : Most interesting to me, on the topic of evolution, is that Lamarckian evolution is experiencing a sort of surge of evidence and testing. Google "epigenetic inheritance". It used to be fairly well accepted that Lamarck was wrong.

That does look fairly interesting. I'll have to look in to this more. Thanks for the google keyword. What's your background anyway? Did you study this in college or in a related field?

Quote from Byebye : big bang/primordial soup are not repeatable yet (big bang probably isn't testable). At my high school they were presented as the only explanations. The "proof" that Intelligent Design presents is really gaps in science right now concluding to a God of the Gaps. What do you think if these gaps are taught in science class without drawing any conclusions to any God. That does look fairly interesting. I'll have to look in to this more. Thanks for the google keyword. What's your background anyway? Did you study this in college or in a related field?

I think it would be great if the gaps were taught! Even in my line of work (nuclear engineering) there are unexplained "magic numbers" regarding nucleus stability and neutron absorption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magi...physics%29

I learning about a lack of knowledge would be great motivation for learning and future research. I feel like a lot of people think that we can explain almost everything and don't really understand where the gaps of knowledge exist.

As far as biology and evolution, that's a sort of side topic for me. Lots of Nova, Discovery Channel, and web surfing on the topic. I did take a class called "The evolution of man, technology, and society" in college, but that does not make me an expert of any kind. I'm sure bonkman outranks me in biology knowledge.

Quote from Xygonn : I think it would be great if the gaps were taught!

I wonder if most ID'ers would be appeased with this. It keeps science in science classes and leaves religion to philosophy classes

Quote from Xygonn : Even in my line of work (nuclear engineering) there are unexplained "magic numbers" regarding nucleus stability and neutron absorption.

I wonder if that is a part of what the IDers call a "Fine-tuned Universe"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Quote from Xygonn : I learning about a lack of knowledge would be great motivation for learning and future research. I feel like a lot of people think that we can explain almost everything and don't really understand where the gaps of knowledge exist. As far as biology and evolution, that's a sort of side topic for me. Lots of Nova, Discovery Channel, and web surfing on the topic. I did take a class called "The evolution of man, technology, and society" in college, but that does not make me an expert of any kind. I'm sure bonkman outranks me in biology knowledge.

Cool.. Thanks for your responses. I was worried that this wouldn't exchange wouldn't be fruitful, but I was proven wrong. Thanks for the information you provided and am glad that we have some common ground.

So if God "create" humans....

who "create" God?

Quote from Ryu-bom : So if God "create" humans.... who "create" God?

:smugmorganfreeman:

Quote from Xygonn : http://www.wired.com/wiredscience...cleotides/ I include religion because EV is implying the faith in science is the same as the faith in religion. The two are nothing alike. One (belief that the universe started with the big bang) is a understood lack of knowledge filled with admitted conjecture. The other is a feeling that there is a greater being that created the world, and is not open to revision.

The other isnt "just a feeling." It is a position backed by reason, observation, and human experience.

In fact the term Post Modern Christianity implies that it is open to revision. Christian apologetics seek to reconcile Christian thought with Natural Philosophy and its step child Science....and have done so for a long long time.

I think that the problem here, isnt ignorance of science, but ignorance (and willful misrepresentation) of the Christian tradition. Science of course being part of that tradition.