« First « Previous Comments 3 - 42 of 141 Next » Last » Search these comments
Let's get to demonstrating some information carrying, self-replicating things not dependent on currently existing life + byproducrts first. Don't have to be perfect, just something.
I agree, there's a lot of inference and assumption between the Miller-Urey experiment and modern life. Many early stages may have been a mixture of local ideal conditions and statistically implausible compounds nonetheless forming against the odds. These stages aren't likely to have left behind evidence to be found today. While the lack of this evidence means I can't make a definitive claim for, it also means there isn't a definitive case against. Kind of like searching every square inch of every Apple store on the planet, finding zero strowger switches in any of them, and on this basis declaring it false that cell phones once evolved from land lines.
but it is a necessary condition for "Shit that didn't happen for $200, Alex" ;)
I think "just happened" is plausible, and the M-U experiments show one avenue to pursue for evidence. As yet, the evidence from this only affirms the plausibility of it, not the truth value where it concerns more complex molecules that might emerge.
I think "just happened" is plausible, and the M-U experiments show one avenue to pursue for evidence. As yet, the evidence from this only affirms the plausibility of it, not the truth value where it concerns more complex molecules that might emerge.
It would also be an exception to entropy, since life gets more organized and complex over time
I swear I didn't pay them to post that in this thread the week before we actually FALL BACK.
Adam? Is this you?
Lifeforms aren't an "exception" to entropy, they are entropy ENGINES that decrease or slow their own entropy by throughputting increased entropy upon the environment. Under this construct, we increase the entropy of forests for shelter to live longer, and increase the entropy of cows and pigs to address the entropy of our own energy stores.
Since there is Life, the entropy of the Universe is delayed and slowed down.
It would also be an exception to entropy, since life gets more organized and complex over time
I don't believe you think personal experience is the only way to know something right?
MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou saysIt would also be an exception to entropy, since life gets more organized and complex over time
It's not a problem as long as more energy keeps coming in.
The relevant law of thermodynamics says that a closed system tends to disorder. But increasing order is entirely possible in a system which has a continuous input of energy.
The physics and mathematics of the universe support life. Perfect systems like this don't just happen.
But mention God and Jesus or a higher power, otherwise known as a creator. And they just shut the whole conversation down. They wont have any of it.
I understand that not all religious people are like this, but I've known some pretty horrific people who wore religion on their sleeve. It was a shield for how fucking awful they were. If those fuckers are in the same after life I am, I'd rather not be there.
I understand that not all religious people are like this, but I've known some pretty horrific people who wore religion on their sleeve.
B.A.C.A.H. saysThe physics and mathematics of the universe support life. Perfect systems like this don't just happen.
Not to get into this argument (again, which I've had countless times before), but are you saying an all powerful, omnipotent, omniscient thinking creature "just happened", but this largely lifeless seemingly infinite, non sentient, universe couldn't "just happen"?
The contradiction in thinking is I think obvious. God is the most perfect system conceivable.
The only thing I got out of arguing religion was frustration, and an understanding of logical fallacies. I think this falls under "special pleading".
It takes Faith to believe either creationism or the Big Bang. How about this...If evolution is real, how is it that nothing ever becomes something else? As in, how come a turtle never turns into an elephant? Evolution is: like morphs into like. It never becomes something entirely different. No?
If what we have around is real, then I have just one issue with evolution: I can't explain how was first life created, even though I am familiar with so-called "prebiotic chemistry" and chemistry of DNA and RNA rather well. After first living bacteria everything is very easy to explain. But it is impossible to explain how very unstable molecules such as (initially) RNA and then DNA were formed and started self-replicating. They rapidly fall apart in lab if you synthesize them and leave them in elements...
Well, one lifeform won't change into an existing lifeform. You must be aware this is a canard. Evolution doesn't predict a dog can become a cat. It predicts that species will adapt to their environment over time, and there's many solutions for adapting to that environment.
richwicks saysWell, one lifeform won't change into an existing lifeform. You must be aware this is a canard. Evolution doesn't predict a dog can become a cat. It predicts that species will adapt to their environment over time, and there's many solutions for adapting to that environment.
The issue is that a multitude of new forms with very little relationship to other creatures nearby in space and time.
Where did that information come from?
The horse is all very good, but how did plankton become trilobites?
The fossil record is far from complete as the textbooks say; it's mostly missing, particularly around key periods like the Cambrian Explosion, which Darwin himself identified and is mostly holes still today.
Exactly right - we don't know. We have hypotheses, but we really don't know - that doesn't mean "well, a god must have done it" - we simply don't know, and it might be impossible for us to EVER know.
Just to repeat - I don't dispute the random mutation over time for living things. However there are holes in Evolution, like sudden bursts of new forms worldwide regardless of climate and the absence of any massive condition changes going on simultaneously, with no immediate forms identified previous. It's almost as if they 'pop in' out of seemingly nowhere.
You can poke holes in the postulates and hypotheses all you want - there's plenty of holes I'm certain - can you come up with a BETTER explanation? "God did it" is not an explanation. HOW did god do it?
It may be that the Cambrian explosion happened when there was some sort of catastrophe to upset the balance. Who knows?
For all we know, God is a force of nature itself, why is it believed to be sentient? Just because a bunch of child predators collected a bunch of stories from a bunch of barbarians, and deemed it "the word of god"?
For all we know, God is a force of nature itself, why is it believed to be sentient? Just because a bunch of child predators collected a bunch of stories from a bunch of barbarians, and deemed it "the word of god"?
« First « Previous Comments 3 - 42 of 141 Next » Last » Search these comments
My stance: Just happened!