AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → whats the difference?

183 43799
killersup10
offline
killersup10
2,739 posts
Blacksmith

so,just about everybody has ruled out the possiblity of their being spcific Gods for a element.Such as the greek Gods,what is the difference however between believing in "mythology" and say for instance a Christan religion.Why is it more beliveable?Does anybody have a answer to why it is more believed that their is one God and not many? Why do people who believe in a God not realize that they are believing in the same thing that they also call rubbish?

  • 183 Replies
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,259 posts
Regent

Jacen96, calm down. You're argumenting on the base of the incomplete knowledge of yours. Even though we will never know how exactly it happened in our specific case, we can very well give simple explanations on how life can come from. Watch this video, it addresses all your issues.

314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

that article says, in black and white. "NO ONE KNOWS WHERE LIFE CAME FROM"


It says "WE HAVE SOME IDEAS BUT WE ARE NOT COMPLETELY SURE YET!". They got the time and about the place, what more do you want?

In order for life to work, all the dna needs to be in correct arrangement in order for the recipe for the right proteins and commands are given out.


Nope, not at all. In fact, most simpler creatures use RNA, (Ribonucleic acid). Depending on what hypothesis you go by, these simple nucleic acids (Not DNA, mind you.) may have come first, then started the rest. Some say the biological process started first, and then came the rest. Really, there is no distinction between living and not living, and we need more research onto the subject.

Really, you are comparing what little you know of modern organisms to things in the past. It would be like saying "HA! COLUMBUS NEVER MADE IT TO AMERICA! HOW COULD HE GET OVER HERE WITHOUT AN AIRPLANE?"
Jacen96
offline
Jacen96
3,087 posts
Bard

Interesting note on the video, it says there was no lightning striking mud, and in the description it mentions the Miller-Urey experiment, which was mud being struck by lightning created organic molecules.

Also, all the video explained was how a lipid bi-layer absorbed a nucleotide and then started to reproduce, it then went on to say early adaptations. But, proteins should take energy to make (not sure), and they require a specific DNA sequence in order to be useful, and if they are not useful they will be selected against.

314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Interesting note on the video, it says there was no lightning striking mud, and in the description it mentions the Miller-Urey experiment, which was mud being struck by lightning created organic molecules.


No, no it was not. Your drinking problem is getting really bad.

Also, all the video explained was how a lipid bi-layer absorbed a nucleotide and then started to reproduce, it then went on to say early adaptations


Which apparently you did not understand. At all.

But, proteins should take energy to make (not sure),


No. No you are not.

and they require a specific DNA sequence in order to be useful


...GRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. You don't know anything about nucleic acids. That is almost true for HUMANS. Complex organisms like us have DNA. Simple organisms like this have RNA, which was explained in the link, could have easily been self replicating and could have done the job.

and if they are not useful they will be selected against.


...What? You are insane.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,259 posts
Regent

Interesting note on the video, it says there was no lightning striking mud, and in the description it mentions the Miller-Urey experiment, which was mud being struck by lightning created organic molecules.

First off, please read what the Miller-Urey experiment was about exactly.

Second, the only time it is mentioned in the description, it says this:
It's been 55 years since the Miller-Urey Experiment, and science has made enormous progress on solving the origin of life.

So, way to be in context.

Also, all the video explained was how a lipid bi-layer absorbed a nucleotide and then started to reproduce, it then went on to say early adaptations. But, proteins should take energy to make (not sure), and they require a specific DNA sequence in order to be useful, and if they are not useful they will be selected against.

As was explained in the video and by 314d1, no complex protein machinery was needed. The simple nucleic acids enclosed in the vesicles had, similar to RNA, structures capable of enzymatic functions. And, as explained in the video, the first nucleic acids in the vesicles were random and didn't contain information.

I'd suggest you do a bit of reading (you already got the links) and watch the video again.
Jacen96
offline
Jacen96
3,087 posts
Bard

No, no it was not. Your drinking problem is getting really bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Miller-Urey_experiment-en.svg
notice the electric spark to simulate lightning.

As was explained in the video and by 314d1, no complex protein machinery was needed. The simple nucleic acids enclosed in the vesicles had, similar to RNA, structures capable of enzymatic functions. And, as explained in the video, the first nucleic acids in the vesicles were random and didn't contain information.

I didn't ignore that. I know they had RNA, but, in order for proteins to form the RNA needs to be correct, or else the protein will fail, and there fore will be selected against. note. I AM TALKING ABOUT LATER IN HISTORY, NOT AT THE TIME THE VIDEO COVERS

No. No you are not.
I said I am not sure, so what you said was redundant.

p.s. Anyone else notice this thread is WAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY of topic?
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

notice the electric spark to simulate lightning.


....Wow. I pity your teachers. Now, please tell me, when does this spark hit mud?

The spark represents lightning, in order to simulate the atmosphere that may have been present at the time. In the air. Not the ground. There is not mud in the atmosphere. Is this to complicated for you?

I didn't ignore that. I know they had RNA,


Then why did you keep saying DNA?

but, in order for proteins to form the RNA needs to be correct, or else the protein will fail,


Proteins? Amino acids? Like I said, they where self replicating. You just need one, and it "replicates itself". Then you have a bunch.

and there fore will be selected against.


...?

note. I AM TALKING ABOUT LATER IN HISTORY, NOT AT THE TIME THE VIDEO COVERS



....Why? Why in hell would you talk about later in history when we are obviously talking about abiogenisis? That would saying "And Attila's stratify was far more efficient then his enemies, both on the field and after effects. And then the dodgers won the world series". One has nothing to do with the other. There is no reason to be talking about later, no indication you where talking about later. They have a ten step solution for people like you.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,447 posts
Jester

Pic fix:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Miller-Urey_experiment-en.svg/516px-Miller-Urey_experiment-en.svg.png

notice the electric spark to simulate lightning.

Notice the lack of mud.

and there fore will be selected against.

Selected against what? How can the first thing be selected against if there's nothing competing with it?

p.s. Anyone else notice this thread is WAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY of topic?


I wonder how that happened...

You do realize it is illogical not to believe in God, which in turns to it is illogical not to believe in the afterlife, or why else would he create us?

btw, was this referring to Pascal's Wager?
Jacen96
offline
Jacen96
3,087 posts
Bard

...Wow. I pity your teachers. Now, please tell me, when does this spark hit mud?
The concept remains.

Selected against what? How can the first thing be selected against if there's nothing competing with it?
by those that don't waste energy on that.
Jacen96
offline
Jacen96
3,087 posts
Bard

sorry for double post, hit submit before i was done

....Why? Why in hell would you talk about later in history when we are obviously talking about abiogenisis? That would saying "And Attila's stratify was far more efficient then his enemies, both on the field and after effects. And then the dodgers won the world series". One has nothing to do with the other. There is no reason to be talking about later, no indication you where talking about later. They have a ten step solution for people like you.
The video explains abiogenesis, but does nothing to explain how life got from that, to what we have today.

Proteins? Amino acids? Like I said, they where self replicating. You just need one, and it "replicates itself". Then you have a bunch.
And how would a self-replicating protein benefit a proto-cell?
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,447 posts
Jester

The video explains abiogenesis, but does nothing to explain how life got from that, to what we have today.

If you want to discuss evolution, go here instead.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

The concept remains.


Yeah! I mean...It has lighting. So you are almost right. Good job. Gold star for you. \\~/

The video explains abiogenesis, but does nothing to explain how life got from that, to what we have today.


Evolution? It is not difficult...

And how would a self-replicating protein benefit a proto-cell?


Self replicating RNA would benefit it great. Did you even read the link?
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

In order for life to work, all the dna needs to be in correct arrangement in order for the recipe for the right proteins and commands are given out. And the chance that it could happen all at once gets smaller and smaller and smaller, exponentially, as more dna pairs are required.


note. I AM TALKING ABOUT LATER IN HISTORY, NOT AT THE TIME THE VIDEO COVERS


So you're not talking about the beginning of life in this first statement? It sure seems the origin of life is what you are trying to get across.


Interesting note on the video, it says there was no lightning striking mud, and in the description it mentions the Miller-Urey experiment, which was mud being struck by lightning created organic molecules.


Further experimentation indicates any sufficient heat source could due such as volcanic activity or thermal vents. It's even possible that the molecules formed elsewhere and were transported to Earth by meteorites, as we find space debris that has come to earth riddled with the molecules needed for life here. So really the energy source is of no real consequence.

The video explains abiogenesis, but does nothing to explain how life got from that, to what we have today.


One you have self replicating life those replications are going to be imperfect resulting in changes in the species over generations ie evolution.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,259 posts
Regent

It's true that it isn't easy to imagine one of those protocells with only random RNA or RNA-like genetic material suddenly produce Proteins. But you have to keep in mind that the modern function of proteins must not necessarily be the same as their original purpose, as is hypothesized in this paper.

Also keep in mind abiogenesis and all following steps are still subject to a lot of research.

Jacen96
offline
Jacen96
3,087 posts
Bard

Self replicating RNA would benefit it great. Did you even read the link?
Did you even read the post?

It's true that it isn't easy to imagine one of those protocells with only random RNA or RNA-like genetic material suddenly produce Proteins. But you have to keep in mind that the modern function of proteins must not necessarily be the same as their original purpose, as is hypothesized in this paper.
and none of these hypotheses will ever be proven for a long long time, so arguing about it is a little pointless.

p.s. I say this because the only way to prove it would be to create life ourselves, and that, according to the hypotheses themselves, takes a long time to happen.
Showing 106-120 of 183