Bulding Blocks Of Dna Found In Meterorites

[David T]

No matter what you think the implications are, you gotta admit this is cool.

Edited August 10, 2011 by nackhadlow

[ldsfaqs]

Found this interesting.....

NASA-funded researchers have evidence that some building blocks of DNA, the molecule that carries the genetic instructions for life, found in meteorites were likely created in space. The research gives support to the theory that a "kit" of ready-made parts created in space and delivered to Earth by meteorite and comet impacts assisted the origin of life.

LDS Theology right there. God created the earth/man by "organizing" it from pre-existing materials, not "out of nothing/thin air" as others claim.

[altersteve]

LDS Theology right there. God created the earth/man by "organizing" it from pre-existing materials, not "out of nothing/thin air" as others claim.

Seeing LDS theology and science gradually start to reconcile with each other is an awesome thing to watch.

[Jeff K.]

A-HAH!!! So the Lord did take pieces of other worlds to create ours.

[Robert F. Smith]

A-HAH!!! So the Lord did take pieces of other worlds to create ours.

Yes, and rather than employing either archebiosis or special creation, God apparently used transmission as his method of choice for bringing life to Earth.

[thesometimesaint]

Maybe.

Life on this planet has been around for so long that I would expect some(few) remnents left over. They need not necessarily to have originated from meteors.

I see life, or at least its precursers, as throughout Gods' creations.

Edited August 11, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Zakuska]

So does anyone think it possible that seeds and spores from this earth could some how escape gravity by wind or perhaps Volcanic eruption or even a meteor impact float out past the atmosphere and stratosphere into space and then survive long enough to make it to another sphere?

I know its probably implausible with all the radiation and what with having to reenter an atmosphere... but... it's an interesting thought to play around with.

[thesometimesaint]

Zakuska:

I doubt that anything as biologically complex as spores, let alone seeds could survive meteor strikes on the early earth. Possibly a few precursers to the amino-acids that form proteins, that make the DNA, that make even spores possible. That is a LONG chain of events that must take place before we get to actual life.

[Hughes]

Zakuska:

I doubt that anything as biologically complex as spores, let alone seeds could survive meteor strikes on the early earth. Possibly a few precursers to the amino-acids that form proteins, that make the DNA, that make even spores possible. That is a LONG chain of events that must take place before we get to actual life.

Isn't that exactly what we observe happening everyday? Life just seems to arise from volcano's everyday! Such a wondrous thing.

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

Who knows? We do see under water volcanoes with life around them. The high heat and hydrogen sulfide allows micro organisms to flourish, which feeds more complex life. Terrestial life however doesn't do so well with the intense heat and hydrogen sulfide of those volcanic vents.

Edited August 11, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Franktalk]

Life is pretty complex. In reading some of these post it seems that life is created by just throwing some molecules in a pile and life comes out. The barrier bewteen loose molecules and a life system is huge. Just because someone finds some base level molecules floating around means nothing. The real hard part is in the organization of the molecules. If I made a device which output random letters it will not produce novels. By far most combinations of base level molecules do not make anything useful. Just like a random letter generator.

[David T]

I really like this new video on LDS.org, with a NASA adviser , which I feel is highly relevant to this.

He acknowledges that from science we can learn important things about "when" and "how", but not "who" and "why". He also makes clear we should view the testimony of science as an additional witness of God's work which compliments the scriptural record, and that both are essential and important aspects of understanding God. I'm actually quite impressed to see this on LDS.org.

Edited August 11, 2011 by nackhadlow

[mfbukowski]

Gosh, who woulda thunk that the seeds of life would be spread kinda like

Uh, ,,,, SEEDS!

Gives the "Tree of Life" new meaning doesn't it?

[Hughes]

Hughes:

Who knows? We do see under water volcanoes with life around them. The high heat and hydrogen sulfide allows micro organisms to flourish, which feeds more complex life. Terrestial life however doesn't do so well with the intense heat and hydrogen sulfide of those volcanic vents.

It's the same mistake that Darwin made, thinking that since life is here, and small, it must be simple, and simple life must just form by itself, because well, it's so simple.

Well, it's not simple, and just because it thrives near volcanic vents doesn't indicate that it is derived from the vents, anymore than we like to live near water means we came from water.

Life is pretty complex. In reading some of these post it seems that life is created by just throwing some molecules in a pile and life comes out. The barrier bewteen loose molecules and a life system is huge. Just because someone finds some base level molecules floating around means nothing. The real hard part is in the organization of the molecules. If I made a device which output random letters it will not produce novels. By far most combinations of base level molecules do not make anything useful. Just like a random letter generator.

Exactly. The electron micro scope should put all this sort of speculation to rest. "Building blocks of life" isn't even 1% of what is needed to organize those elements into a living thing.

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

Actually the life around undersea volcano vents proves Darwin right.

The Theory of Evolution does not address the origins of life. Only that once it appears it must adapt through reproduction to a changing environment. Failure to reproduce means death to that species. In short: Those that reproduce WIN.

[Hughes]

Hughes:

Actually the life around undersea volcano vents proves Darwin right.

The Theory of Evolution does not address the origins of life. Only that once it appears it must adapt through reproduction to a changing environment. Failure to reproduce means death to that species. In short: Those that reproduce WIN.

Life adapting doesn't prove or disprove Darwin's theory since it's not testable.

Saying that survivors adapt, and those who adapt reproduce, also win, isn't saying anything. It's essentially a tautology, saying winners win.

Where Darwin was mistaken is saying that change over time or adaptation is responsible for all the variety of life we observe. Unfortunately micro-biology didn't exist in Darwin's time, and his view was based on the idea that smaller life was simple by comparison to larger forms of life. We now understand that it's all based on the same basic DNA coding system, which is no different than a complex language.

So, today if someone says that all we need is a bunch of letters (building blocks of a book), and time (and the "right" conditions), we will eventually end up with a book, they would be laughed out of the room. Yet when some claim the same thing about life they aren't laughed out of the room. Why is that?

[mfbukowski]

I suppose it's not my place to say, but having a big mouth, I will anyway.

This thread is about finding the building blocks for amino acids in meteorites - not about fundamentalism and evolution.

Why does every thread have to become another Scopes trial?

Edited August 12, 2011 by mfbukowski

[LeSellers]

Why does every thread have to become another Scopes trial?

They don't. Shame on you! Many become about Prop 8, and don't you forget it!

Lehi

[Hughes]

I suppose it's not my place to say, but having a big mouth, I will anyway.

This thread is about finding the building blocks for amino acids in meteorites - not about fundamentalism and evolution.

Why does every thread have to become another Scopes trial?

Because it's laughable that it means anything, just as finding a bunch of letters on the ground means finding the building blocks to a library.

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

Individual survivors don't adapt. It is the genetic differences/changes in their offspring that allow the species to survive. No species is beyond one generation from extinction. Darwin was correct.

Ps. I've made this offer to others before. If you REALLY want to disprove evolution, there is a very easy way to do it. It takes no special tools(beyond a shovel, a note book, and a way to write in the note book), it takes no special skills(beyond a good back, and a willingness to take extremely accurate notes). You interested? Now just dig up a fully modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens skeleton in a previously undisturbed precambrian layer of dirt, and fully document what you see.

Edited August 14, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Hughes]

Hughes:

Individual survivors don't adapt. It is the genetic differences/changes in their offspring that allow the species to survive. No species is beyond one generation from extinction. Darwin was correct.

Ps. I've made this offer to others before. If you REALLY want to disprove evolution, there is a very easy way to do it. It takes no special tools(beyond a shovel, a note book, and a way to write in the note book), it takes no special skills(beyond a good back, and a willingness to take extremely accurate notes). You interested? Now just dig up a fully modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens skeleton in a previously undisturbed precambrian layer of dirt, and fully document what you see.

Of course I disagree. I couldn't ever believe that letters simply organize themselves into libraries by themselves (atheists), nor do I see evidence that God did it that way.

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

I'm fine with disagreement on evolution. But that disagreement needs to be based on more than mere opinion. The science behind evolution is well established and HUGE. So much so that modern biology is dependent on it.

[Franktalk]

Hughes:

I'm fine with disagreement on evolution. But that disagreement needs to be based on more than mere opinion. The science behind evolution is well established and HUGE. So much so that modern biology is dependent on it.

It is well established that the parts that build life do mutate. This has been shown in bacteria to cause new forms of bacteria. And when with environmental pressure the bacteria will change from one form to another. But mixed in with this are hard numbers of what is required to make this happen. Death rates of 99.99% and offspring in the millions. So for this case I agree we do see and can document a change mechanism that responds to environmental pressure. And we have another system that also holds to the classic definition of evolution. In some species we have genes that turn on or off due to some kind of environmental pressure. These genes can change the behavior or abilities of a particular being surviving or not so indeed this can be viewed as evolution. This is gene expression. Then lastly we have gene drift due to sexual recombination. This allows for the mix of genes to vary over time and can lead to some genes being lost in a population. This also can be viewed as evolution.

Beyond what I have just stated we have no evidence of evolution. Oh you may point to a pile of bones but they match what we see around us. We see death around us and species going extinct. The story of the bones does not match what we see. You may wish to see something that is not there. But that is an opinion and a choice. If you truly follow the numbers you can't get that story to work.

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

Sorry I don't understand your comment.

[mfbukowski]

They don't. Shame on you! Many become about Prop 8, and don't you forget it!

Lehi

Oh yeah,

Sorry sir, I forgot about that.