Jugernot:
Yup, that's a good one, and why do men have fully functional mammary glands?
How did the marsupials get to Australia from Mt. Ararat without leaving a trace in between?
How did the approximately 10,000+ species of beetles evolve from the 2 on the Ark in just 6000 years?
Yup, that's a good one, and why do men have fully functional mammary glands?
How did the marsupials get to Australia from Mt. Ararat without leaving a trace in between?
How did the approximately 10,000+ species of beetles evolve from the 2 on the Ark in just 6000 years?
maul,
Apparently you do not read other peoples messages or else you would realize that your arguements are severely flawed.
Have you even cracked open an anthropology/biology text book ever in your life? It doesn't seem like it since you lack even fundamental understanding of basic science. Chimps are here now, hense we could not evolve from them. At best you can think of them as far removed cousins. We share quite a bit of dna though.
You are asking evolutionary theory to answer who/what/how the universe was created? Why would a specific thoery need to include something else. You could say that any scientific theory should answer those questions. since no theories currently can answer them, they are all completely wrong. Your asking your car to give you the meaning of life, its just absurd.
I did not ignore your question. Your questions have no merit.
Apparently you do not read other peoples messages or else you would realize that your arguements are severely flawed.
Have you even cracked open an anthropology/biology text book ever in your life? It doesn't seem like it since you lack even fundamental understanding of basic science. Chimps are here now, hense we could not evolve from them. At best you can think of them as far removed cousins. We share quite a bit of dna though.
You are asking evolutionary theory to answer who/what/how the universe was created? Why would a specific thoery need to include something else. You could say that any scientific theory should answer those questions. since no theories currently can answer them, they are all completely wrong. Your asking your car to give you the meaning of life, its just absurd.
I did not ignore your question. Your questions have no merit.
apoppin
Lifer
Personally, I believe everyone's logic is flawed here. The people who believe in creation will never convince evolutionists since their minds are already made up (and the reverse is probably also true).
Have you noticed in each of these major threads how so many important points and questions remain unanswered?
This has turned more into name-calling than a reasonable discussion.
In time, I'd like to start a new discussion that only deals with a very narrow subject: the ORIGIN of life. Whether life was created or it developed from non-living matter.
For me, the origins of life are the most perplexing of all questions and one that I feel the evolutionists have never been able to satisfactorily explain. If you could provide reasonable evidence for life arising from chance, I think the evolutionary theory stands a better chance of being more universally accepted.
What do you think of a new discussion limited only to discussing life's origins? Are you evolutionists up for it?
Have you noticed in each of these major threads how so many important points and questions remain unanswered?
This has turned more into name-calling than a reasonable discussion.
In time, I'd like to start a new discussion that only deals with a very narrow subject: the ORIGIN of life. Whether life was created or it developed from non-living matter.
For me, the origins of life are the most perplexing of all questions and one that I feel the evolutionists have never been able to satisfactorily explain. If you could provide reasonable evidence for life arising from chance, I think the evolutionary theory stands a better chance of being more universally accepted.
What do you think of a new discussion limited only to discussing life's origins? Are you evolutionists up for it?
This is cool. Being simplistic, I wonder why the past 10 evolution threads of the previous 2 days can't be consolidated, but hey, it works.
And my answer is no. I just can't...
I appreciate the correct terminology, though: "....believe in evolution?"
edit: Oh it's a poll!! lol
Now we can see who's really right!
And my answer is no. I just can't...
I appreciate the correct terminology, though: "....believe in evolution?"
edit: Oh it's a poll!! lol
Now we can see who's really right!Sigh, Why do I do this?
Darth Maul: According to current quantum physics, a patch of space is never empty, there is always quantum fluctuations when a pair of particle and anti-particle appear for an instant in space and then promptly annihalate each other. Also, If you are talking about before the Big Bang, That lump as you call it is extremly hard to imagine for our minds because that lump is space, there is no "outside" becuase the entire universe was the lump, there was also no time as well as the lump was there, time was not "standing still", time didnt exist.
This however is not in conflict with evolution because some force, call it god if you will, has caused this lump to expand out 4 of its dimensions and make them run forward. therefore "god" did create the univerese but this does not mean that he carefully crafted each species all at the same time making each distincly different but extremly similar.
And life can begin without life simply because life itself is made of simpler components which assemble themselves into a self-reproducting unit which is the basis of what life is.
Chess9:
<< 3 : to arrive at a correct conclusion about by conjecture, chance, or intuition <guess the answer> >>
All scientific theories are guesses in the fact that a person saw a whole bunch of facts and applied his intuition towards it and saw a relationship, This forms a scientific hypothosis which is really just an educated guess as to waht is happening in the universe. As the hypothosis becomes more accurate, the scientist can start making predictions as to what should happen in a controlled experiment. If the predictions are correct and continue to be correct, the hypothosis is turned into a theory which then turns into a law with enough subsequent experiments. This,however, does NOT mean that his guess is true, it is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise but NO scientific theory is ever certainly true.
Whitedog: Yes, this is boring me but I suppose there is some gene in me which forces me to hit my head against the brick wall of narrow-mindedness for the slim chance of educating someone
Darth maul(again): 100,000 First you dont believe in evolution and then you quote an evolutionists estimate on something that happened millions of years ago using a barely understood process (Thats right, we dont yet know that much about evolution yet but the knowledge is improving due to the unravelling of the human genome). Using a simple example, you would only need two species: Suppose two villages of proto-apes were living about 500km apart. They rarely ever meet due to distances so they are pretty much in seperation. After a couple of thousand/million years, the amount of mutations due to natural cosmic rays or from the ground has caused the chromosomes to split irreguarly and one group has one extra chromosome. As the climate changes, the two communitys are forced to retreat and find that they meet again. They try to cross breed but it fails for some unknown reason to them. They go their seperate ways. One group, living in the plains, has a spark of insight, or is driven to sheer desperation due to hunger, that, if he got a large bone, he could kill some of the antelope and get some extra food. The other group is still living in lush forests and has as much food as they want. The group in the plains put the best bone hitting proto-apes as group leaders and thus breed more. As each generation gets slighlty better club holders due to natural selection, the thumb gradually groms longer for better club holding. Eventually the rainforest group of proto-apes become apes with only some minor evolution since there is no real survival threat. The other group evolves rapidly due to always facing hardsip and become humans. See, that wasnt so hard was it?
Note: This example has been blatantly ripped from 2001: A space Odyssey and has compromised scientific accuracy to increase understanding
Darth Maul: According to current quantum physics, a patch of space is never empty, there is always quantum fluctuations when a pair of particle and anti-particle appear for an instant in space and then promptly annihalate each other. Also, If you are talking about before the Big Bang, That lump as you call it is extremly hard to imagine for our minds because that lump is space, there is no "outside" becuase the entire universe was the lump, there was also no time as well as the lump was there, time was not "standing still", time didnt exist.
This however is not in conflict with evolution because some force, call it god if you will, has caused this lump to expand out 4 of its dimensions and make them run forward. therefore "god" did create the univerese but this does not mean that he carefully crafted each species all at the same time making each distincly different but extremly similar.
And life can begin without life simply because life itself is made of simpler components which assemble themselves into a self-reproducting unit which is the basis of what life is.
Chess9:
<< 3 : to arrive at a correct conclusion about by conjecture, chance, or intuition <guess the answer> >>
All scientific theories are guesses in the fact that a person saw a whole bunch of facts and applied his intuition towards it and saw a relationship, This forms a scientific hypothosis which is really just an educated guess as to waht is happening in the universe. As the hypothosis becomes more accurate, the scientist can start making predictions as to what should happen in a controlled experiment. If the predictions are correct and continue to be correct, the hypothosis is turned into a theory which then turns into a law with enough subsequent experiments. This,however, does NOT mean that his guess is true, it is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise but NO scientific theory is ever certainly true.
Whitedog: Yes, this is boring me but I suppose there is some gene in me which forces me to hit my head against the brick wall of narrow-mindedness for the slim chance of educating someone
Darth maul(again): 100,000 First you dont believe in evolution and then you quote an evolutionists estimate on something that happened millions of years ago using a barely understood process (Thats right, we dont yet know that much about evolution yet but the knowledge is improving due to the unravelling of the human genome). Using a simple example, you would only need two species: Suppose two villages of proto-apes were living about 500km apart. They rarely ever meet due to distances so they are pretty much in seperation. After a couple of thousand/million years, the amount of mutations due to natural cosmic rays or from the ground has caused the chromosomes to split irreguarly and one group has one extra chromosome. As the climate changes, the two communitys are forced to retreat and find that they meet again. They try to cross breed but it fails for some unknown reason to them. They go their seperate ways. One group, living in the plains, has a spark of insight, or is driven to sheer desperation due to hunger, that, if he got a large bone, he could kill some of the antelope and get some extra food. The other group is still living in lush forests and has as much food as they want. The group in the plains put the best bone hitting proto-apes as group leaders and thus breed more. As each generation gets slighlty better club holders due to natural selection, the thumb gradually groms longer for better club holding. Eventually the rainforest group of proto-apes become apes with only some minor evolution since there is no real survival threat. The other group evolves rapidly due to always facing hardsip and become humans. See, that wasnt so hard was it?
Note: This example has been blatantly ripped from 2001: A space Odyssey and has compromised scientific accuracy to increase understanding
apoppin
Lifer
<<And life can begin without life simply because life itself is made of simpler components which assemble themselves into a self-reproducting unit which is the basis of what life is.>>
Is this statement suposed to be "scientific"?
Nothing assembles itself. At least this has never been demonstrated even under "ideal' circumstances.
Is this statement suposed to be "scientific"?
Nothing assembles itself. At least this has never been demonstrated even under "ideal' circumstances.
Yeah, it's just that first prokaryotic (sp? I dunno') cell that baffles me the most. What did it use for energy? It just seems that so many different complex, unusual, non-"naturally" occuring molecules would have had to have been so fortunately on the same spot of the earth's gazillion square mile surface at the same time. This simple assembly of non-existent organelles into a self-reproducing unit that is the basis of life is just too much without evidence for me to believe. If this spontaneous generation of life occured 3bill years ago, wouldn't it spontaneously happen today, or at least every so often, too, where it could be studied? I don't know much about cells, please teach me! (not a sarcastic comment)
Zucchini, I do hope you go back and read what I posted, man I was using chimps in the most generic sense. As in ape like creature! EEEEEEEE aaaaaaahhhhhhhh, glad you were able to figure that one out, lol.
Anyhow to believe in evolution, you have to believe life started somewhere, and to believe that, you have to ask where/how that somewhere was/came about/what it was etc. Stop the nonsense and answer the question. Even a "duh, I donna know", would do wonders. If the begining can't be explained, then how do you explain that I can be sitting here trying to reason with a ape like creature as yourself?
Stop avoiding the fundamentals here......
Anyhow to believe in evolution, you have to believe life started somewhere, and to believe that, you have to ask where/how that somewhere was/came about/what it was etc. Stop the nonsense and answer the question. Even a "duh, I donna know", would do wonders. If the begining can't be explained, then how do you explain that I can be sitting here trying to reason with a ape like creature as yourself?
Stop avoiding the fundamentals here......
Shalmanese, I said clump, not lump, there is a difference, seeing as there is a difference between chimp and ape like creature.......as pointed out by Zucchini.
Anyhow, my model of taking a box and emptying was a hypothetical, I know its humanly impossible to do, never said it was possible. "...there is no "outside" becuase the entire universe was the lump, there was also no time as well as the lump was there, time was not "standing still", time didnt exist." Ok if time didn't exist, did time evole from nothing too?
"And life can begin without life..." <---ummm who proved this? Or did ya forget a IMHO?
"... Eventually the rainforest group of proto-apes become apes with only some minor evolution since there is no real survival threat. The other group evolves rapidly due to always facing hardsip and become humans. See, that wasnt so hard was it?" Yah, ok, statisticly you know how impossible that one group of apes evoling over time to become humans in a "rapidly" manor as you so put, is? And not to mention the probabilty of the process of de-evolving, before re-evolving. Like a clan of "chimps" growing another set of arms to acheive a certain task, then after a certain time, they don't need that, so they de-evolve that extra set of arms. (ummm, anyone saying extra set of arms never would happen, fine, pick any trate that might have evolved then de-evoled) The point is, there is no level of certain probability that would suggust a straight linear progression of evolution. Meaning (X) trait gained, never lost; equals the level of almost pure impossibility. Or in other words the evolutionary process had to run a corse more like this: take 5 steps forward then 5 steps backward, then maybe, just maybe, one step forward. Thus we come to the bare minimum of 100,000, of course the starting species would matter in that number, which one they picked I don't know, but it wasn't one that used flippers in the sea to get around.
I need sleep.
Anyhow, my model of taking a box and emptying was a hypothetical, I know its humanly impossible to do, never said it was possible. "...there is no "outside" becuase the entire universe was the lump, there was also no time as well as the lump was there, time was not "standing still", time didnt exist." Ok if time didn't exist, did time evole from nothing too?
"And life can begin without life..." <---ummm who proved this? Or did ya forget a IMHO?
"... Eventually the rainforest group of proto-apes become apes with only some minor evolution since there is no real survival threat. The other group evolves rapidly due to always facing hardsip and become humans. See, that wasnt so hard was it?" Yah, ok, statisticly you know how impossible that one group of apes evoling over time to become humans in a "rapidly" manor as you so put, is? And not to mention the probabilty of the process of de-evolving, before re-evolving. Like a clan of "chimps" growing another set of arms to acheive a certain task, then after a certain time, they don't need that, so they de-evolve that extra set of arms. (ummm, anyone saying extra set of arms never would happen, fine, pick any trate that might have evolved then de-evoled) The point is, there is no level of certain probability that would suggust a straight linear progression of evolution. Meaning (X) trait gained, never lost; equals the level of almost pure impossibility. Or in other words the evolutionary process had to run a corse more like this: take 5 steps forward then 5 steps backward, then maybe, just maybe, one step forward. Thus we come to the bare minimum of 100,000, of course the starting species would matter in that number, which one they picked I don't know, but it wasn't one that used flippers in the sea to get around.
I need sleep.
Maybe we should start treating theories like ideas rather than beliefs. Look how opinionated everyone gets and no one can conclusively prove each other right or wrong.
Debating over it shows how society is rotting away their own mentality with intellectual pompousness(sp?).
Can anything (besides mathematics) be definitively true in the world?
Debating over it shows how society is rotting away their own mentality with intellectual pompousness(sp?).
Can anything (besides mathematics) be definitively true in the world?
Yeah, it's just that first prokaryotic (sp? I dunno') cell that baffles me the most.
First of all cells were not the first to come. It is belived that the first "Life" was strands of RNA. RNA is just like DNA but it isn't as stable, use a 5 carbon sugar with no oxygen on the number 2 carbon. It has been proven that RNA can act as a "enzyme" in current cells this ezymes are called Ribosymes. Studies have been done to prove that RNA can go throw a cycle in which two strands can make 3 with out requiring a cell.
What did it use for energy?
Most likely it used chemmicals that are made at the end of glycolis.
It just seems that so many different complex, unusual, non-"naturally" occuring molecules would have had to have been so fortunately on the same spot of the earth's gazillion square mile surface at the same time. This simple assembly of non-existent organelles into a self-reproducing unit that is the basis of life is just too much without evidence for me to believe. If this spontaneous generation of life occured 3bill years ago, wouldn't it spontaneously happen today, or at least every so often, too, where it could be studied?
As you said the odds are not that great and the condition has to be right for it to happen again and people have only know of cells for a about 300 years. Until 100 years or so ago the nuclease which hold DNA was thought to be usless.
First of all cells were not the first to come. It is belived that the first "Life" was strands of RNA. RNA is just like DNA but it isn't as stable, use a 5 carbon sugar with no oxygen on the number 2 carbon. It has been proven that RNA can act as a "enzyme" in current cells this ezymes are called Ribosymes. Studies have been done to prove that RNA can go throw a cycle in which two strands can make 3 with out requiring a cell.
What did it use for energy?
Most likely it used chemmicals that are made at the end of glycolis.
It just seems that so many different complex, unusual, non-"naturally" occuring molecules would have had to have been so fortunately on the same spot of the earth's gazillion square mile surface at the same time. This simple assembly of non-existent organelles into a self-reproducing unit that is the basis of life is just too much without evidence for me to believe. If this spontaneous generation of life occured 3bill years ago, wouldn't it spontaneously happen today, or at least every so often, too, where it could be studied?
As you said the odds are not that great and the condition has to be right for it to happen again and people have only know of cells for a about 300 years. Until 100 years or so ago the nuclease which hold DNA was thought to be usless.
apoppin: Some guy did an experiment in the sixties where he put the basic chemicals of life(hydrogen,carbon, oxygen,nitrogen with traces of phospher etc) and ran sparks through it in a test tube to try to form a crude simulation of conditions on the early earth. When he had a look, he found some basic amino acids in the test tube which wernt there before. True it is a long step from RNA and DNA but it does prove that somethings can be assembled due to sheer luck and chance. Traditionally, Scientists thought they had the definition of life down pat but occasionaly, one of them said, hey we dont really know a lot about what life is really. He would be promptly ignored by scientist who had "real" work to do. Then came computers and the chance that they might actually simulate life as well as intelligence. Then scientists started thinking about what life/intelligence really was and become stumped as to what the answer was. To this day, there still has been no really satisfying definition of life or intelligence as most of what we define has been simulated by computers while we still claimthey are inanimate. To me reproduction is a very fundamental part of life as well as change.
Recneps: A argument for creationists is that life is so improbable that it has to be a deliberate act but in all the billions of stars in the universe, only the ones supporting intelligent life will be in awe of the probabilitys that life occured but those that are barren life will not wonder. Naturally, IF we occured by chance, we would be astounded at the probability but that is only because billions of world do not contain life. (This is sort of a hard point to put across at 1am in the mornig so if anyone gets whatim getting at please put it in a clearer form)
Darth maul: Neither cosmology nor the theory of evolution even claims that they have the answer to why it happened, only how it happened. I am quite prepared to believe that a "god" (not in the conventional christian sense) created both the universe and life but the point I am disputing is: "What happened then?" This seems the most likely path to go to find see if we can make any insight into "why" but I personally believe that cosmology will be extremly unlikely to find it (maybe they will find out that we are formed from another universe's black hole or that we are one in a series of universes which start when another ends) and evolution would have to be struggling all the way. As far as the big bang is concerned however, The big bang was the start of time and no matter when it happened, it was the start of time. Literally time started at this point, There was no "choice" as to when it started. ARGHH the english language and the human brain are so ill equipped to come to terms with these concepts and I wot try to explain it to you as even I cant fully grasp any so I will just quit trying. If you want to know more, learn about 5 lifetimes worth of mathematics and maybe you will start to understand a smidgen but dont bet on it.
Also
The club was such a huge advance for the human race that there was no chice but to go on, The good clubbers got plenty of meat and their offspring survived, the bad ones died of hunger. After the club came numerous other tools like knives, spears and agriculture which just served to increase the momentum. A step back in evolution would mean extinction which did happen to several of our cousins (Scientific American sometime last year with the 2 cavemen on the cover)
Recneps: A argument for creationists is that life is so improbable that it has to be a deliberate act but in all the billions of stars in the universe, only the ones supporting intelligent life will be in awe of the probabilitys that life occured but those that are barren life will not wonder. Naturally, IF we occured by chance, we would be astounded at the probability but that is only because billions of world do not contain life. (This is sort of a hard point to put across at 1am in the mornig so if anyone gets whatim getting at please put it in a clearer form)
Darth maul: Neither cosmology nor the theory of evolution even claims that they have the answer to why it happened, only how it happened. I am quite prepared to believe that a "god" (not in the conventional christian sense) created both the universe and life but the point I am disputing is: "What happened then?" This seems the most likely path to go to find see if we can make any insight into "why" but I personally believe that cosmology will be extremly unlikely to find it (maybe they will find out that we are formed from another universe's black hole or that we are one in a series of universes which start when another ends) and evolution would have to be struggling all the way. As far as the big bang is concerned however, The big bang was the start of time and no matter when it happened, it was the start of time. Literally time started at this point, There was no "choice" as to when it started. ARGHH the english language and the human brain are so ill equipped to come to terms with these concepts and I wot try to explain it to you as even I cant fully grasp any so I will just quit trying. If you want to know more, learn about 5 lifetimes worth of mathematics and maybe you will start to understand a smidgen but dont bet on it.
Also
The club was such a huge advance for the human race that there was no chice but to go on, The good clubbers got plenty of meat and their offspring survived, the bad ones died of hunger. After the club came numerous other tools like knives, spears and agriculture which just served to increase the momentum. A step back in evolution would mean extinction which did happen to several of our cousins (Scientific American sometime last year with the 2 cavemen on the cover)
apoppin
Lifer
Shalmanese, if the gas mixture represents the atmosphere, the electric spark stands in for lightening, the boiling water represents the ocean, who or what does the scientist arranging the experiment represent?
Although amino acids were synthesized, all of the subsequent experiments failed to synthesize protein and DNA.
Although amino acids were synthesized, all of the subsequent experiments failed to synthesize protein and DNA.
Shalmanese:
There is a very large difference between a sophisticated analysis of data and guessing. Ask any 8th grade Algebra student.
Anyway, calling such sophisticated analyses as Darwins "guesses" is absurd. You guess on the SAT. Whether we send a man to the moon, or analyse the development of 10,000 beetles we use highly structured analytical tools. Of course, intuition plays a part because the intuited theory on rare occasions fits the data. But in Darwin's case, HE said the data led him to his conclusion. Nothing else.
If you think the various theories attendant to "evolution", as we loosely speak of it here, are guesses, then you must think Newton was guessing about the Law of Gravity.
There is a very large difference between a sophisticated analysis of data and guessing. Ask any 8th grade Algebra student.
Anyway, calling such sophisticated analyses as Darwins "guesses" is absurd. You guess on the SAT. Whether we send a man to the moon, or analyse the development of 10,000 beetles we use highly structured analytical tools. Of course, intuition plays a part because the intuited theory on rare occasions fits the data. But in Darwin's case, HE said the data led him to his conclusion. Nothing else.
If you think the various theories attendant to "evolution", as we loosely speak of it here, are guesses, then you must think Newton was guessing about the Law of Gravity.
apoppin
Lifer
vi_edit, they have been working on that same experiment over 40 years to create "ideal" conditions. Result - "uniform failure".
Intelligence and advanced education are required to study and even begin to explain what occurs at the molecular level in a cell. Is it reasonable to believe that complicated steps occured in a "prebiotic soup" spontaneously, undirected and by chance?
Intelligence and advanced education are required to study and even begin to explain what occurs at the molecular level in a cell. Is it reasonable to believe that complicated steps occured in a "prebiotic soup" spontaneously, undirected and by chance?
Life doesn't necessarily have to be carbon-based. Since every plant and animal is build up out of elemental particles, those particles can be replaced with different ones, creating life as well.
Therefore, even on a planet where carbon-based life would die instantly, life could exist.
It is a pity that not many seem to understand this and keep telling each other that only the Earth can support life and that we've been lucky that all variables were set right.
Life is nothing but a very complicated chemical reaction.
Therefore, even on a planet where carbon-based life would die instantly, life could exist.
It is a pity that not many seem to understand this and keep telling each other that only the Earth can support life and that we've been lucky that all variables were set right.
Life is nothing but a very complicated chemical reaction.
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
"Intelligence and advanced education are required to study and even begin to explain what occurs at the molecular level in a cell. Is it reasonable to believe that complicated steps occured in a "prebiotic soup" spontaneously, undirected and by chance? "
Is it reasonable to think that even what has been found by this "shot in the dark" experiement to be fairly intriguing? At least we are on the same wavelength that the whole thing was a chance.
Finding a vaccination for polio, putting a man on the moon, and even developing a nuclear bomb did not happen over night. These were all very significant accomplishments in their own right. I think that figuring out how inorganic materials created organic material is a little more complex. Is it not reasonable to think that piecing together the origin of life would take a little longer than 40 years?
Is it reasonable to think that even what has been found by this "shot in the dark" experiement to be fairly intriguing? At least we are on the same wavelength that the whole thing was a chance.
Finding a vaccination for polio, putting a man on the moon, and even developing a nuclear bomb did not happen over night. These were all very significant accomplishments in their own right. I think that figuring out how inorganic materials created organic material is a little more complex. Is it not reasonable to think that piecing together the origin of life would take a little longer than 40 years?
apoppin
Lifer
<<Is it reasonable to think that even what has been found by this "shot in the dark" experiement to be fairly intriguing?>>
This was no shot in the dark experiment. And actually, its been near to 50 years since these first experiments by Dr. Miller (1953).
<<I think that figuring out how inorganic materials created organic material is a little more complex. Is it not reasonable to think that piecing together the origin of life would take a little longer than 40 years?>>
Actually the more experiments performed and the more data since gathered, weighs more heavily
against life occuring by chance.
Shall we start a new thread dealing with ONLY the origin of life? I am up for it.
This was no shot in the dark experiment. And actually, its been near to 50 years since these first experiments by Dr. Miller (1953).
<<I think that figuring out how inorganic materials created organic material is a little more complex. Is it not reasonable to think that piecing together the origin of life would take a little longer than 40 years?>>
Actually the more experiments performed and the more data since gathered, weighs more heavily
against life occuring by chance.
Shall we start a new thread dealing with ONLY the origin of life? I am up for it.
dcdomain
Diamond Member
- Jan 30, 2000
- 5,158
- 0
- 71
I'm with Preyhunter, the thing is that most people think of evolution in the wrong way. Evolution is basically Darwin's survival of the fittest. At times in a species lifetime, certain offspring will be born with 'mutations' depending on whether these mutations are beneficial, it'll be passed on to the next generation. For example, if an offspring has a mutation like a longer neck, it might allow it to reach food better and then survive, allowing it to reproduce, but if an offspring has a shorter neck, they won't be able to reach enough food and will die before reproducing... that's what I believe evolution is...
Thats probably all I remember from my STS class back in high school.
Thats probably all I remember from my STS class back in high school.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter