Exactly! Since us humans have only been on the earth for a short time, the past billions of years before us is very hard to fathom. We haven't really been around long enough to document and record any major changes in the evolution of any given specie.
Origin of life on earth.
- Thread starter Enmos
- Start date
Exactly! Since us humans have only been on the earth for a short time, the past billions of years before us is very hard to fathom. We haven't really been around long enough to document and record any major changes in the evolution of any given specie.
Well i think given our combined present intellectual ability both can be classified as supernatural. Also, if there was proof of 'GOD' this would not be considered supernatural anymore.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I don't see how an intelligent being from another world would be supernatural, it would be fully within the realm of the natural.
God on the other hand is outside the natural world. I you want to debate this further please find one of the many threads concerning this, where many theists have insisted God is supernatural.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
No, I didn't get mad lol
I'm sorry if I came across as such..
I just didn't want to say 'aliens'.
I meant aliens like this:
For example..
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Created like caused to come into existence by any means necessary.
Some options can overlap but I set the options up in such a manner that each next option rules out the former. Take a look
Anyway, the question was 'what's more probable', not what actually happened. We will probably never know that anyway.
I understand. But if they are like the image you show above why would we look the way we do?
And would you say the work was done here on Earth or was it transported from another planet? Vegetation can be seeded but how about living organisms? This is an enormous undertaking
And would you say the work was done here on Earth or was it transported from another planet? Vegetation can be seeded but how about living organisms? This is an enormous undertaking
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
The image was just an example of aliens (E.T.'s), they can look radically different of course.
Furthermore, no alien ever claimed to have created us in their own image
Maybe they optimized us for out environment at the time. Anyway, looks will have chanced by now by cause of evolution.
I don't know.
You realize you want me to give specifics on something I don't even believe in right ? I chose option 3
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
The conditions on the primordial earth were very different from todays conditions.
Primordial soup
In 1936 Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin, in his "The Origin of Life on Earth", suggested that organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-less atmosphere, through the action of sunlight. These molecules, he suggested, combine in ever-more complex fashion until they are dissolved into a coacervate droplet. These droplets could then fuse with other droplets and break apart into two replicas of the original. This could be viewed as a primitive form of reproduction and metabolism. Favorable attributes such as increased durability in the structure would survive more often than nonfavorable attributes.
Around the same time J. B. S. Haldane suggested that the earth's pre-biotic oceans - very different from their modern counterparts - would have formed a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds, the building blocks of life, could have formed. This idea was called biopoiesis or biopoesis, the process of living matter evolving from self-replicating but nonliving molecules.
In 1953, taking their cue from Oparin and Haldane, the chemist Stanley L. Miller working under Harold C. Urey carried out an experiment on the "primeval soup". Within two weeks a racemic mixture, containing 13 of the 22 amino acids used to synthesize proteins in cells, had formed from the highly reduced mixture of methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen. While Miller and Urey did not actually create life, they demonstrated that more complex molecules could emerge spontaneously from simpler chemicals. The environment simulated atmospheric conditions as the researchers understood them to have been on the primeval earth, including an external energy source in the form of a spark, representing lightning, and an atmosphere largely devoid of oxygen. Since that time there have been other experiments that continue to look into possible ways for life to have formed from non-living chemicals, e.g. the experiments conducted by Joan Oró in 1961.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
It takes just four different molecules to make DNA or RNA (so nothing like the cretinous odds creationists quote) and once they start stringing together, you have a possibility of life. Volcanic vents in the oceans where chemical mixes can occur is a current idea on how that happened. Some believe it could have been aided by a bombardment from space which we know did occur.
There are currently a number of laboratories around the world working on creating life from inanimate materials (New Scientist 12 Feb 2005) and they expect results in a decade or two.
There are currently a number of laboratories around the world working on creating life from inanimate materials (New Scientist 12 Feb 2005) and they expect results in a decade or two.
Enmos, what does that paragraph from 1936 prove?
Kaneda, now Darwins theory is conveniently beginning to include external mechanism, seeding or a variation. The reason is because originally and as it is written in the poll will not be able to hold up to scrutiny for much longer. Especially since we now are fully aware how dependant living organisms are to one another.
And what is the latest word on transitional species?
Kaneda, now Darwins theory is conveniently beginning to include external mechanism, seeding or a variation. The reason is because originally and as it is written in the poll will not be able to hold up to scrutiny for much longer. Especially since we now are fully aware how dependant living organisms are to one another.
And what is the latest word on transitional species?
What do you guys think of this:
http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/ED15/01_nature.html
Scroll down to the image and examine it. What is your conclusion?
Suffice it to say, this is an artistic interpretation. The differences may possibly be even wider so if anyone has links adressing this specifically i will be happy to look at them.
http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/ED15/01_nature.html
Scroll down to the image and examine it. What is your conclusion?
Suffice it to say, this is an artistic interpretation. The differences may possibly be even wider so if anyone has links adressing this specifically i will be happy to look at them.
Life on earth came into existence 'by itself' through abiotic processes.
If biology has taught me anything its this. =p
If biology has taught me anything its this. =p
But there's no evidence that it happened at all, DNA and RNA and the molecular machines in cells are very complex, even more complex than computers
Thats why its just a theory
Why is an intelligent cause not viable?
When you have something so complex that it rivals computers and no evidence for any natural explanations why isn't an intelligent cause viable (besides the fact that science is naturalism)?
Bio-engineers say that bacteria (the simplest form of life) on the genetic level uses many of the same tricks as computer inverters
Did I say it wasnt?