videogames101
Diamond Member
- Aug 24, 2005
- 6,783
- 27
- 91
life, at it's roots, is beyond simple. in fact, it only barely makes qualifies what we call life , but some material+another material from some probably very rare coincidence makes something the resmembles life, and slowly we move forward. You think there aren't theories for that? i kinda gave a lame explanation there, i didn't look anything up, but just googling you can easily find the anweser to this question, or theoretical anwsers anyways =)
No Oxygen? Why not?
Ok, then you have a reducing atmosphere. Same problem. So you have metal hydrides, sulfides, etc. How is that better for propgation of life? All your organic molecules are presumably formed from CO2. They are then reduced, ostensibly to carbohydrates. Esters and Organic acids are reduced under such conditions, and the basis for metabolism of most creatures on this planet is negated (ATP hydrolysis, fatty acid synthesis, etc).
Having a reducing environment does not make for more gentle conditions, just different reactivity. Throw some LAH in water for a demonstration :-D
Ok, then you have a reducing atmosphere. Same problem. So you have metal hydrides, sulfides, etc. How is that better for propgation of life? All your organic molecules are presumably formed from CO2. They are then reduced, ostensibly to carbohydrates. Esters and Organic acids are reduced under such conditions, and the basis for metabolism of most creatures on this planet is negated (ATP hydrolysis, fatty acid synthesis, etc).
Having a reducing environment does not make for more gentle conditions, just different reactivity. Throw some LAH in water for a demonstration :-D
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
I can't believe there are people in this thread who think that evolution doesn't happen because they don't understand it. It's as if not understanding how natural selection works means you are smarter than the world's biologists, ecologists, geologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, psychologists, etc. The irony is just mind boggling.
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
So
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2001
- 25,923
- 17
- 81
Life probably formed in a CO2 rich atmosphere, IIRC.
Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...ere#Evolution_on_Earth
That's the problem. It doesn't matter if you remember, because no body knows. This isn't even science. It's assumptions and conjecture. The basis of science is a testable hypothesis. Unless you were there, it doesn't leave much for testing, now does it?
videogames101
Diamond Member
- Aug 24, 2005
- 6,783
- 27
- 91
The funniest thing is, creationists bash evolution, but provide no evidence for their own theory, but while evolutionists also bash creationists, they turn up almost incontrovertible evidence for their own theory.
BOOM Headshot
:beer:
Edited for spelling...
BOOM Headshot
:beer:
Edited for spelling...
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 19
- 81
Read my post in the link.
The problem is, this process deals with enourmous numbers, and often times what happens when people try to visualize it, or put it in context, it creates a buffer overflow error, and the mind just assumes, "That's impossible because I can't fathom it."
The oceans are huge. Millions of cubic kilometers. One cubic kilometer is huge by itself. Hell, one cubic meter of water would probably have trillions of bacteria in it. They might go through one generation in 20 minutes. There is a lot of opportunity for change there. Multiply that by a few billion, now you've got the oceans of the planet. Multiply by a few more billion to go from minutes to years. Now you've got the time period involved.
Concerning species to species changes, you do realize that "species" is something we invented. Someone might view an adaptation, such as finches developing larger beaks, as being a "new species." We make a distinction which lets us make sense out of the world, just as we give definition to the word "two" to mean that there is one object plus another one of that same object.
And, it's a slow process. Our lifespans are puny compared to how long these processes take. Evolution occurs a bit more rapidly than geological processes, which are on the order of millions or billions of years for something big to happen. But it's still too slow for us to watch in realtime. You're not going to see a reptilian life form's lineage slowly develop into something warm-blooded with feathers unless you either have a time machine, or develop a lifespan of 100 million years.
Hey, people masturbate, right? Ultimately, nothing useful is accomplished, but people still do it anyway.Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Hey look, another worthless Evo/Creation thread that will go absolutely no where.
But life needs not be efficient. Just efficient enough to get by. The human digestive system, in terms of input vs output, is not especially efficient. If I eat something, a good bit of it is going to be excreted. But the process is efficient enough to allow for survival.
Try stirring a few billion of those flasks a few billion times, and mix them together, and heat them in various combinations, at various pressures, for varying periods of time, then get back to me.
Creationism addendum:
Also incorporates the belief that the formation of this intelligent designer is somehow an easier process than the formation of the Universe from various chemicals, whose actions are dictated by predictable, nonrandom processes (gravity for instance).
Because you're object to evolution is so absurdly ridiculous. Abiogenesis (what you appear to object to) is not part of evolutionary theory and even if you believe that a divine being created the first cell, it takes true "doublethink" to deny evolution.
Btw, in case it wasn't clear, creationism means young earth creationism, not intelligent design.
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
Scientists HAVE created the molecules that we believe are the basis of life in a lab. I guess it was not that lab you work in.
Lol...
Abiogenesis is unrelated to evolutionary theory so objecting to abiogenesis is rather meaningless in the context of evolution.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,550
- 940
- 126
No, I think it would be much better if we stuck to teaching about science in our science classes instead of sky fairies.
Please. I create the molecules of life all the time. I do NOT, however, create life itself. There is the problem. You can have all the ingredients for life, and not have life.
Imagine someone who dies. They try to resuscitate him, but fail. Why? Why does he die? He has EVERYTHING he needs to live, and yet does not.
I can throw all 20 amino acids together in a flask, add some acid (or whatever the hell else you feel is necessary) and not come up with an enzyme.
People make the mistake of saying "we have evidence that the molecules of life were here" and extrapolate that to mean "we found life!"
Gunslinger08
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2001
- 13,234
- 2
- 81
Where did you go to school that your science teachers taught you about creationism? Sounds like more of a teacher issue than a system-wide issue.
My comments were more towards the ultra conservative Christian belief set. I think most (non-delusional) non-Christians admit that they don't know where all of the matter in the universe came from. Ultra conservative Christians tend to think evolution is the exact opposite of their beliefs, when they couldn't be more wrong. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin matter or even the origin of life.
NikolaeVarius
Lifer
- Oct 25, 2006
- 11,036
- 11
- 91
videogames101
Diamond Member
- Aug 24, 2005
- 6,783
- 27
- 91
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter