because we needed 'scientists' to tell us that :D

  • Thread starter Thread starter جوري
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 6
  • Views Views 3K
"Better yet, it turned out unexpectedly
that using clay enhanced protein production."

Interesting......


:peace:
 
Quoting, "The latest theory is that clay - which is at its most basic, a combination of minerals in the ground - acts as a breeding laboratory for tiny molecules and chemicals which it 'absorbs like a sponge'. The process takes billions of years, during which the chemicals react to each other to form proteins, DNA and, eventually, living cells, scientists told the journal Scientific Reports. ...

'Over billions of years, chemicals confined in those spaces could have carried out the complex reactions that formed proteins, DNA and eventually all the machinery that makes a living cell work.' The conclusions are based on experiments by the researchers using synthetic hydrogels, adding DNA, amino acids and enzymes and simulating the production of proteins."

I fail to see how these statements come close to being scientific. I see they are no more than wild speculation. How can one add DNA, amino acids and enzymes to simulate protein production and then use the results to speculate on the spontaneous origin of those very ingredients used in the experiment? I would like to see evidence for the spontaneous abiotic creation of even a single nucleic acid from the basic building blocks of C, H, O, N and P in a natural environment.
 
MustafaMc said:
I would like to see evidence for the spontaneous abiotic creation of even a single nucleic acid from the basic building blocks of C, H, O, N and P in a natural environment.
Click to expand...

This would be related to the evolution theories. But what I 'read' into the article is the gist of the message which is about the clay - 'that it turned out unexpectedly. . . ' which in essence is what's described in the Qur'an with regard to creation of man. Why clay? Why only recently discovered and quite 'unexpectedly' too?

So, while Allah fashions the clay and allows it to 'set'(?) and Iblis (I think he was called Azazeel then) busied himself with his curiosity of this new creature, tapping it and found to be hollow etc before Allah decided to blow the 'ruh' into the body could very well be infused into what the article is saying.

Maybe I am getting it totally wrong here. :embarrass


:peace:
 
Assalamu alaikum, I was not being critical of what you wrote, but of the article itself. I understand that you got the gist of the article and why the sister posted it. Actually, abiogenesis (per the article) and origin of the species through evolution are different, albeit related, subjects of intellectual 'investigation'. I believe that scientists can never come up with a satisfyingly comprehensive theory for either. If they can't determine where we came from, then how can they possibly offer any answer to the question of what becomes of us when we die. Do we cease to exist upon the cessation of our heart beating or does our essential being (soul/ruh/nafs) continue to exist after it stops and our bodies decay?
 
greenhill said:
This would be related to the evolution theories. But what I 'read' into the article is the gist of the message which is about the clay - 'that it turned out unexpectedly. . . ' which in essence is what's described in the Qur'an with regard to creation of man. Why clay? Why only recently discovered and quite 'unexpectedly' too?
Click to expand...

The original research was not carried out to prove abiogenesis, but in order to find more economic ways of manufacturing proteins in synthetic hydrogels. They experimented with clay simply because it was cheap. The 'unexpected' part was not just that it worked, but that it enhanced protein production.

It was only at this point that they realised the possible implications for abiogenesis. A clay-based hydrogel would have conferred many of the benefits of a cell in a time before cells had actually evolved (ie a concentrated environment to speed up reactions and protection against nucleases which would otherwise damage the newly formed proteins).

This story was then picked up by the press and by religious groups. It's a good example of how difficult it is for scientists to say anything in this area without it being misinterpreted because it is so highly charged.

Overall, it doesn't make sense to see this reference to clay as supporting scripture, because the role of clay as described is only important in the context of abiogenesis - which scriptures of course reject.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131105132027.htm
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

Back
Top