Science: 1; Religion: 0

Posted by Kromey at 3:04am May 14 '09
You must sign in to send Kromey a message
Every time Creationism - excuse me, "intelligent design" - has been presented to me, the basis for it has always been one of two things (sometimes both):
1) The Bible says God created the world, not evolved it.
2) There's not enough science behind evolution, too many holes.

If you're one of the people who relies solely upon that first argument, stop reading now, because you will not like what's coming next, nor will I enjoy reading, "But God said it was so!" Believe what you want, but personally I put far more stock in observation, the power of logical reasoning and deduction, and the advances of modern science than I do in a moldy old book, no matter who the author may be.

Moving on, the second argument is true, in part. There are a lot of holes in the theory of evolution. But that's what sets science apart from religion: Science isn't afraid to answer any question with "We don't know - yet." It may not be as satisfying as, "Because God wills it so," but it's the truth.

Well, recently science has closed one of the holes in evolution, specifically in the area of, "How did we get from a slime of inorganic goo to walking, talking, breathing, internet-using Homo sapiens?" One of the biggest problems has been getting out of that goo - science hasn't yet figured out how said goo became the first single-celled life form. We still haven't puzzled that one out, but we found a big piece of the puzzle: how RNA was first formed.

For those too lazy to go look it up, RNA is essentially the precursor to DNA, serving a very similar role and having a very similar structure, but it is less stable because it does not have DNA's distinctive double-helix structure. Sutherland's recent research indicates that RNA simply forms naturally in the presence of the proper ingredients and through a series of cycles of water being heated, evaporated, and returned.

If you think water heating, evaporating, and returning is implausible, I refer you back to the third grade, where you can learn about the all-important "water cycle", and then I'll send you outside on a sunny day.

Anyway, the short is that his team was able to produce RNA through a process "not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth." Now, they still haven't created RNA proper, but they have created its building blocks using plausible natural processes, "a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis." (For the record, viruses use RNA to reproduce, not DNA. Jury's still out on whether or not a virus is "alive", but it's closer to "alive" than inorganic goo.)

added on 3:05am May 14 '09:
Yes, source is Wired.com. Don't think it's a reliable scientific source? Fine. Get off your ass and find a source you do like.
There are 63 private posts in this thread. You need to sign in to read them.

You currently have read-only access to this board. You must request an account to join the conversation.

Why Join 4thKingdom?

Note that there are no ads here. Just intelligent and friendly conversation. We keep the spam out, the trolls out, the advertisers out… 4K is just a low-key, old-fashioned site with members from around the world.
This community began in 1998, and we continue to accept new members today.

Hot Discussion Topics: