Science and religion agree?

[Mahdi]

From CNN.com...

**************************************************

STUDY SUGGESTS LIFE SPRANG FROM CLAY

Saturday, October 25, 2003 Posted: 10:11 AM EDT (1411 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Science backed up religion this week in a study that suggests life may have indeed sprung from clay -- just as many faiths teach.

Florescent micrograph reveals RNA,

red, absorbed to mineral clay surface

and encapsulated within a cell-related

structure known as a vesicle.

A team at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston said they had shown materials in clay were key to some of the initial processes in forming life.

Specifically, a clay mixture called montmorillonite not only helps form little bags of fat and liquid but helps cells use genetic material called RNA. That, in turn, is one of the key processes of life.

Jack Szostak, Martin Hanczyc and Shelly Fujikawa were building on earlier work that found clays could catalyze the chemical reactions needed to make RNA from building blocks called nucleotides.

They found the clay sped along the process by which fatty acids formed little bag-like structures called vesicles. The clay also carried RNA into those vesicles. A cell is, in essence, a complex bag of liquidy compounds.

"Thus, we have demonstrated that not only can clay and other mineral surfaces accelerate vesicle assembly, but assuming that the clay ends up inside at least some of the time, this provides a pathway by which RNA could get into vesicles," Szostak said in a statement Thursday.

"The formation, growth and division of the earliest cells may have occurred in response to similar interactions with mineral particles and inputs of material and energy," the researchers wrote in their report, published in the journal Science.

"We are not claiming that this is how life started," Szostak stressed.

"We are saying that we have demonstrated growth and division without any biochemical machinery. Ultimately, if we can demonstrate more natural ways this might have happened, it may begin to give us clues about how life could have actually gotten started on the primitive Earth."

Among religious texts that refer to life being formed from the soil is the Bible's Book of Genesis where God tells Adam, (King James translation), "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

**************************************************

[Acriku]

An interesting coincidence, yet I am unsure that that is what they were talking about in Genesis. "Hey look! Bubba got a question right!" ;)

[TMA_1]

actually you are wrong acriku, there are dozens of creation stories that say man came from the earth. From south american tribes, to the dravidians of southern india. It comes from a perfect truth of the deep path. Any constructive things to say? ::)

[Acriku]

Wow, they said man came from earth. Well what else can they say? Man came from my ass I tells ya! No, as the earth is all that's here. So obviously, some would say that. Doesn't mean they had RNA on their minds at the time, or any fundamental understanding of amino acids or even DNA. As I said, quite an interesting coincidence.

[TMA_1]

God understood the mechanisms of life, and gave that information in simple terms primitive man could understand. that simple.

[Acriku]

Or people saw the earth, and thought man came out of it. The most simplistic explanation, ah can't you feel the goodness?

[Caid Ivik]

Well, we have 4 theories of human creation and only religiouslicaly inacceptable is the fourth:

1. Human was created on Earth and all was given to him in the beginning. After few faults was the project reassembled by God. Decline of age is a fruit of these drastical changes.

2. Human was created outside Earth, but after primary sin he was banished and cast to some periphery world named "Earth". "Ha'arec" in first verse of Genesis will mean then grounds themselves, not Earth as a planet. Decline of human age is caused because we were not used to this planet.

3. Human was created on Earth, but some aliens (elohim? titans? angels?) enslaved him. That solves the illogical agriculture problem. Maybe first these aliens created him and just watched on his evolution. When he found out his position, they rather came and enslaved and weakened him.

4. Human was created by Earth itself from dead matter.

[Acriku]

What is illogical about the agriculture of humans?

[Egeides]

Personally, I see the Genesis as a metaphor so I don't really bother...

[Caid Ivik]

What is illogical about the agriculture of humans?

If we take the naturality of human, he had forests full of animals and berries. Why should he once start to breed grass and then from its flour make bread? Illogically hard process, why should human do it? Numbers were minimal as in today's hunting tribes. What caused that some of humans once found that it would be 'better' to become dependant on fortune in growing own plants?

[Acriku]

When tribes hunt animals, that population may diminish until there is no food anymore at their location. So they are forced to relocate. So, when they found out how to grow seeds into vegetables or whatnot, they did not have to move and relocate, and the hassles along with it, because they could stay there can grow as much food as they want and that is how populations grew larger and larger. As much as food as you want, no need to relocate, I think that's quite logical.

[Caid Ivik]

As we look on natural tribes, their numbers are still on same high. Animals are replenishing with even higher efficiency than human, which tries to control it. But suddenly, tribes grew in numbers and started to grow plants. Was there some change in reproductivity? Why?

[Acriku]

I don't understand where you're getting your statistics?

[Caid Ivik]

Statistics? Why do you need exact numbers, population was stagnated until sumerian civilisation.

[Acriku]

So, explain to me your second to last post, because it is difficult to understand.

[Caid Ivik]

I use today's natural hunter tribes as model. They control reproductivity and in their enviroment is plenty food for all. Quickly replenishing. Why is it that SOME of humans suddenly started to grow plants?

[Acriku]

Well you also have to think about some tribes wanting to grow out, and become stronger and larger.

[Moose212]

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_panspermia_030724.html

hmm.....

[alchemi2]

many primitive societys do not link sex and child birth so how do they actively control reproduction.

ever read clan of the cave bear jean auel.

If you read genisis then you can see the logical progression of creations so why should we be surprised that science once again back up the theology.

domestication of plants or animals came overa long period of time many thing most discovery were accidents that were just used as they improve living standards. by remaining in one area tribes have more settle lives and stable resource obviously an improved enviroment increase chances of survival, longlife increased population more people to perform task and defend from predators also increase chances of survival.

[Acriku]

If you read genisis then you can see the logical progression of creations so why should we be surprised that science once again back up the theology.

So you're saying that the authors of the bible knew about amino acids and RNA and DNA? And are you also saying that you accept abiogenesis and evolution?

[Caid Ivik]

Well you also have to think about some tribes wanting to grow out, and become stronger and larger.

Such groups will just consume other hunting areas. But not animal numbers.

[Acriku]

They would have to relocate if they were to eat from other areas, so if they found out how to grow food, it would be much easier and more appealing.