RE: The Human Race 2

RE: The Human Race 2 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

DomKen -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/26/2008 8:47:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Come on Domken, my bizzare claims consist of stating what philosophical materialism states as the condition of the Universe. There is nothing at all that is random and unpredictable (in theory). Its pretty much the only thing you can believe as an atheist. Quantums and Chaos are simply buzzwords, as you are using them here, and both are 100% deterministic. Nothing unpredictable or random about them. You truly have no idea at all about QM if you think it is 100% deterministic. quote: So you believe philosophical materialism, but haven't made up your mind about its conclusions? Interesting. Interesting how someone who doesn't uderstand the basics of their faith is lecturing me on my lack of faith. quote: Some Christian groups believe in "pre destination", but the existance of Free Will and the choice to accept or reject Christ is central to most forms of Christianity. Nice propoganda but not true. If the christian deity is postulated as omniscient, some minor sects don't postulate that but all major christian sects do, then there is literally nothing ever that that deity does not know therefore no free will. quote: Again, I don't think that the courts define what is and what isn't science or a philosphic movement. But your assertion that a court ruling is fact, will be used against you in our future debates. What did the courts rule in Bush v Gore 2000? Don't have to answer now, but it will come up again. You misuderstanding what I'm trying to tell you, intentionally perhaps. The Kitzmiller v Dover case and ruling includes a detailed history of the ID movement and lays bare the movements goals. The only reason I pointed you there was to give it to you all in one link. But I can just as easily give it to you in others. The 'wedge' document, a strategy paper by the foremost proponents of ID: http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy All about the Discovery Institute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute The money behind ID: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Ahmanson%2C_Jr Lots and lots of ID movement research by Dr. Forrest: http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/

DomKen -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/26/2008 8:51:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Domken : Please dismiss from your mind the idea that it is sufficient to believe that natural Selection must be true because you are an Atheist and can pick holes, or know where to go to find the weaknesses, in the philosophy underlying orthodox Christianity. It wouldn't matter what my faith is or isn't I've seen the fossils and gene charts, I've done the population genetics math, etc. etc.. Evolution is a fact and is the cause of the diversity of life on Earth. The theory of evolution is the only theory that explains those facts.

luckydog1 -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/26/2008 10:31:32 PM)
Again, I will post the defintion of Philosophical Materialism, Dictionary: materialism (mə-tîr'ē-ə-lĭz'əm) [image]http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/pron.gif[/image] n. Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena. Quantum mechanics does not give actuall answers, just ranges of probabilities. It just like Chaos thoery (which you also attempted to use, glad you backed off of that one, though I did miss the retraction) is an attempt to deal with stuff we can't fully measure. Quantum theory is not fully understood, and there are many different variants, often at significant odds. We do get some wierd seeming data, which has led to the formation of some non deterministic models, but they are purley theoretical, not applied to the real world. But a system is either deterministic or not. There is no middle ground, right? If any part is non deterministic, the sytem is non deterministic, right? So do events at the quantum level happen according to laws or something else? If laws- deterministic, if not- what? Randomness or application of will, or....you tell me. If quantum events were random, ie equal chance of anything happening in any event, we would not have a universe, things would be disintegrating, transforming, or being created at random in random places. We would not have a stable universe to live in. Now quantum theory does have some interesting stuff about how the observer affects things, which could result in a non deterministic, non random universe (of course that observer would have to be outside the system, interacting with it, and is usually called God). Interesting that you want to comment on my faith, personal attack, but you got that wrong. I am not a Christian, I think thier ideas have been deeply corrupted by politics and man, to the point it is mostly useless. quote: Me: Some Christian groups believe in "pre destination", but the existance of Free Will and the choice to accept or reject Christ is central to most forms of Christianity. domken Nice propoganda but not true. If the christian deity is postulated as omniscient, some minor sects don't postulate that but all major christian sects do, then there is literally nothing ever that that deity does not know therefore no free will. That is just nonsense, and flat out wrong. Being Omniscient means all knowing, not in controll of everything. As I said I am not a Christian, but you are completely misstating the theology of it. There are a minority that do believe in Predestination (Presbeterians, perhaps some radical Baptists). But mainstream Christians (Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, Lutherans, Baptists, and Evangelicals), have free will as part of thier basic root theology. Islam does also. Bhuddism and Hinduism posit that Man does have free will to make karma affecting choices. Humans get the Free Choice to accept Christ (Islam) or reject it. That is what "in our image" means in Genisis, Free Will. It is why Man is seperate from the animals (again this is not my belief system, but you need some education on it). I have listened to Native activists demanding the right to teach ID in schools, so that they can pass on some of their cultural positions, and stories. I don't care what Wikipedia says, or who coined the phrase. You admitted it was a "big tent" term at the get go, that means it has more than one meaning and set of adherants, trying to apply some to all, is simply a failure of logic. ( A B and C are all systems that use the term X to describe themselves. ---C calls it self X. A calls itself X. QED C and A are the same thing. No, thats stupid, and if you have any scientific Inegrity, you will retract ,and redefine if you like)) If you think reality is set by a court case, thats your disfunction, and I am sure you will reject that as soon as it is convient for you. The reality is that huge pressure was brought on that community (and its kids) and politically they decided to not appeal the case, which they would almost certainly have prevailed in. It was a lawsuit over the reading of a 2 minute statement. No one was advocating not teaching Evolutionary theory. That the lawsuit was decided not by what was on the table, but over deeper sinister motives, makes it fairly ridiculous. And certain to have been overturned on appeal. You act as if Dover decided to quit teaching Evolution. Its nonsense adn not based on facts, despite what the world wide Atheist lobby says. And people around the globe poured millions of dollars into the case, and subseqeunt School board elections Here it is in full, the entire Dover controversy. On the first day of class the following statement was read, " The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments." Why that has you so upset is interesting, your fear is not fact based. I noticed this on your Wikilink. " ^ "The objective of the Wedge Strategy is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'" Phillip Johnson quoted. Missionary man Rob Boston. Church & State, April 1999. " Which is wierd because you keep asserting that Darwinism is inherantly Atheistic. So from the perspective of people who do want to use ID as a slippery slope, you are helping them. I am sure that they appreciate it. I think you would get a lot if you read some actuall Theology instead of just stuff that is anti. You sound a lot like Seeks in you attacks on the existance of some sort of God. Trying to say that Major Christian theology doesn't include the Free Will to reject or accept Christ, any believer would laugh at you and think you were very uneducated. Surley you understand why it is best to understand the actuall position of those you want to convert.

seeksfemslave -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/27/2008 4:27:02 AM)
Trying to demonstrate that enough "stuff" exists to make the concept of a natural origin of life highly probable HippieKinkster says quote: Mass of water is roughly 1 gram/cc. Molecular weight of water is 18g/mol. That's 55.5555 moles per liter, or 3.346x10^25 molecules. In a one liter coke bottle. That's a lot of molecules. How many liters in the earth's oceans? The problem here is that the DNA that is the required building block of life already exists and is present in the most primitive, ie earliest , cells which are resident in those enormous volumes of water. So Hippie the job has already been started, probably before the oceans even formed for all I know. . The molecules mentioned in Hippies post are the "plonkers" of the natural world in that they dont do a great deal. They consist of atoms that have bound together to produce amongst many other things say water. If so water is their destiny ..... for evah and evah. When DNA one of the basic building blocks of life is considered then something profoundly different is at work, especially in the stage right after fertilisation when the embryo mysteriously has the capacity to diverge to produce all of the proteins that ultimately result in a live human being. See how statisically simple that is !!!! quote: The DNA molecular code is a genetic 'language' that communicates information to the cell. The cell is very complicated, using many DNA instructions to control its every function. The amount of information in the DNA of even the single-celled bacterium, E. coli, is vast indeed. It is greater than the information contained in all the books in any of the world's largest libraries. The DNA molecule is exquisitely complex, and extremely precise: the 'letters' must be in a very exact sequence. If you subjected some magnetic tape to a varying magnetic field for say a million years would you expect a usable computor programme to eventually appear ? Well would you ?

DomKen -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/27/2008 8:01:21 AM)
Even the most primitive archaea or cyanobacteria alive today is the product of roughly 3 billion years of evolution. There is absolutely no reason to think the initial organisms were anywhere near as complicated as those cells are today. Some information suggests the earliest life may have used RNA rather than DNA and proteins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world BTW that is another quote you didn't source and the assertion is suspect to say the least. Googling finds that the common lab strain of E coli has 4.6 x 10^6 base pairs. being very generous and treating each base pair as a letter. I'll be generous and store each 'letter' in a whole byte. Which means the whole E coli genome would take up 4.6 megabytes. A fairly standard approximation is 1 kilobyte of text fits on a single printed page so we're talking about 4600 pages. That's 8 or 10 reasonable size bound volumes or IOW a single shelf of a houshold bookshelf. Just more proof creationist sources always lie. Adding on. I got bored and googled the quote and found the source: http://www.origins.org/articles/thaxton_dnadesign.html quote: This paper was presented as part of the conference, Jesus Christ: God and Man, an international conference in Dallas, Texas, November 13-16, 1986 Thaxton is a well known creationist and supporter of the Intelligent Design movement. So if you're not a creationist why are you cribbing creationist lies from a creationist website?

LadyEllen -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/27/2008 8:25:02 AM)
isnt the DNA molecule special because it replicates itself? I'm asking here, not saying! Its a long time since I did biology at school, (and being a big girl, never did chemistry), but I'm sure it was along the lines of it attracting more atoms chemically, then when it gets to a certain sized molecule it becomes unstable and breaks in two - each half then grows again through the same process? If thats the case, then all it needs is for the molecule to sweep up atoms which it wouldnt normally sweep up as it grows, to produce something a bit different in structure, provoking differentiation and maybe leading to competing models of DNA which then later go on to form different forms of proto-life? E

DomKen -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/27/2008 8:45:56 AM)
DNA doesn't spontaneously replicate itself. Various enzymes are needed to break the two strands of the double helix and then other enzymes are needed for the copying. All nucleic acids, DNA and RNA as well as some others, have the potential to carry information and to be copied more or less accurately. DNA is the most stable of them and that stability makes it require lots of enzymatic help to do what is needed. RNA and some of the others, while much less stable, are more able to actually self replicate in the presence of non polymerized nucleic acids bases which is why some abiogenesis researchers are investigating the possibility of pre DNA life.

LadyEllen -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/27/2008 8:50:37 AM)
Thanks Ken - but where do the enzymes come from? are these naturally occurring chemicals? E

DomKen -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/27/2008 9:05:16 AM)
They're fairly complicated proteins that the DNA itself carries the instructions for making. I really doubt they occur very frequently in nature except as the result of biological action. Just to make clear, what DNA primarily contains are genes. Each gene is a delineated sequence that RNA in each cell's ribosomes translates into a specific protein. Virtually all those proteins are enzymes, chemicals that catalyze other chemical reactions. This allows us to carry out chemical reactions that uncatylized would require too much heat or pressure or take too long to be possible for life. Enzymes in saliva and throughout our guts do a lot of the chemical breakdown of our food to allow us to absorb useful material. Enzymes in our blood, when exposed to air, cause coagulation and clotting which keeps us from bleeding to death when injured. Note that the less stable nucleic acids don't need enzymatic action to copy which is one of the reasons scientists are investigating if DNA based life may have evolved from a simpler RNA based form.

seeksfemslave -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/27/2008 9:13:16 AM)
Taken from DomKen's link after he has claimed that early life may only have needed RNA to exist. Comparing DNA with RNA the link says quote: The major difference is the presence of a hydroxyl group at the 2'-position of the ribose sugar in RNA. This group makes the molecule less stable; in flexible regions of an RNA molecule (ie. where not constrained in a double helix), it can chemically attack the adjacent phosphodiester bond to cleave the phosphodiester backbone. The hydroxyl group also forces the ribose into the C3'-endo sugar conformation unlike the C2'-endo conformation of the deoxyribose sugar in DNA. This forces a RNA double helix into a slightly different conformation to DNA. Bearing in mind for life to develop RNA would have had to be stable for millions of years we find it eats its own tail. If DomKen's calculation is correct, to support one relatively simple life form , of zillions that actually existed ,only information equal to that found in a 4600 page book needs to organise itself accurately and sequentially over the aeons. It is apparenly quite easy for some to believe that this could occur based on an unstable molecule. Any mutations over those aeons and bingo E.Coli never evolves The construction method of the life supporting proteins that involves both DNA and RNA and a delicate matching transformation from the chromosome in the nucleus ending up with protein X is so precise that you might just as well say the Faeries originated it. the construction method I mean. More sensible that relying on blind chance

DomKen -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/27/2008 9:24:48 AM)
And so the creationist twists things about without actually understanding anything. E coli is not the first or even an early life form. It is a very successful organism alive today with roughly 3 billion years of evolution behind it. RNA does not 'eat' itself in minutes but when unwound from double helix has a short lifespan of at worst 19 days in boiling water and 17,000 years in freezing water. Short in geologic time but a long long time compared to the lifecycle of unicellular life of today so its not unreasonable to guess that once it got going it was fine. How it got started in the first place is still an open question of abiogenesis which has nothing to do with the validity of evolution. Life exists therefore abiogbenesis occured in some way. Evolution happens today and evidence shows it has been going on since the very first life appeared. BTW am I the only one amused that seeks didn't at least admit being busted using a creationist source after loudly declaiming he wasn't a creationist? Anybody want to bet that is the last anonymous quote he'll be posting in this thread?

LadyEllen -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/27/2008 9:24:49 AM)
I dont understand how you draw that conclusion Seeks. Lets just say the proposed RNA life is less stable, and the DNA life is more stable; what would that lead to? The DNA life becoming dominant perhaps as the RNA life due to its instability died off - leading to the kind of DNA domination of life today? E

DomKen -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/27/2008 10:53:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 <snipping lots and lots of bull> You appear to be equating explainable with deterministic in you use of the dictionary definition of materialism. Until you understand the difference I cannot begin to figure out how to move forward on that front. Your claims about QM are simply wrong. QM is definitely not deterministic. Even such relatively macro phenomenon as radioactive decay is not deterministic. I guess you have no background in basic theology either. Omniscient means infinite complete knowledge. That includes, by definition, the outcome of all events based on the starting condition. Which means the christian deity, as postulated, knew who would and would not come to worship it. Therefore no free will. Now go argue this with somebody who gives a damn about your faiths theology. Those wiki articles include references to the original sources which show what the ID movement is. You can ignore that and make claims about some confused native americans who think ID should be taught to get their faith in science class but that doesn't change the facts I presented. As to Dover, _Of Pandas and People_ is a creationist textbook that in the aftermath of Edwards v Aguillard changed by search of replace of creation science, creator etc. with Intelligent Design, Designer etc. The school board was quite open about their creationist leanings and intentions. The boards leaders were caught in various perjuries during the trial and the judge apparently chose not to file a criminal complaint solely because they got voted of the school board during the trial. The Discovery Institute, the central organization of the ID movement, is funded by Howard Ahmanson, a well known christian extremeist, the leading financier of the Christian Reconstructionist movement. Finally evolution is not inherently atheistic and nothing I've said indicates or implies otherwise. I've even pointed out that mostchristian sects support a belief called theistic evolution which I made clear was something I had no problem with. On a related note, why do you find it so hard to avoid strawmen and flat out lies when debating someone?

seeksfemslave -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/27/2008 11:18:54 AM)
LadyE both DNA and RNA are involved in maintaining life as it exists right now. The splitting of the DNA, creation of a transfer RNA which moves from the cell nucleus and recombines with RNA aided by the enzymes ends up in a way that I dont understand in organising the Amino Acids that constitute the proteins that control what we are. Note that the Amino Acids themselves are fiendishly complex molecules. The detail may not be wholly accurate but it shows how delicate and complex to the highest degree the process is. At long last DomKen has let the cat out of the bag. I have made this point before and now DomKen agrees it is true. Abiogenesis must have occured because we are here similarly Evolution is true because we exist. It is not possible to seperate abiogenesis from evolution because it is the genetic structure of life that determines what species a given life form is. The DNA that needs to exist is, at the lowest most basic level, what identifies life. Noting that a Finch's beak can change only indicates that that genetic tendency is already present within the Finch not that it is the first step along the road to a new species. Evolution only makes guesses about the development of life at a time long long long after the building blocks of life had come into existance. In other words not a lot is really known about the true origin which again. as I have said before transcends reason , and is almost certain to remain unknown. If you choose to have faith in a metaphorical Biblical account of the origin of life that is just as valid as having faith in an account couched in abstruse esoteric foreign derived technical terms. No doubt about that.

DomKen -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/27/2008 11:32:10 AM)
You must really not be reading my posts seeks. I've said that at least twice in this thread. I've admitted we don't have a good theory for abiogenesis but it remains absolutely undeniable the evolution is occuring has occured and the theory of evolution is the best explanation. Abiogenesis is the theory of how life began. The theory of evolution is concerned with the diversity of life at the present and over time. They are not interwtined they are truly independent. no matter how abiogenesis occured evolution has been going on ever since and all life is descended from a common ancestor. Now about all the creationist lies you've spread in this thread, why? I'm surely not the first person to point out the untruths you told.

luckydog1 -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/27/2008 11:40:46 AM)
"I guess you have no background in basic theology either. Omniscient means infinite complete knowledge. That includes, by definition, the outcome of all events based on the starting condition. Which means the christian deity, as postulated, knew who would and would not come to worship it. Therefore no free will. Now go argue this with somebody who gives a damn about your faiths theology. " Despite your repeated attempts to pretend so, Christianity is NOT my faith. However you are flat out wrong, and Free Will is central to Christianity (most forms). "I guess you have no background in basic theology either. Omniscient means infinite complete knowledge. That includes, by definition, the outcome of all events based on the starting condition." No it would mean that in a Determinstic Materialistic universe, which is not the premise of Christianity or any religion. "Your claims about QM are simply wrong. QM is definitely not deterministic. Even such relatively macro phenomenon as radioactive decay is not deterministic. " Nope you are simply stating a flasehood here. There is no single QM. It is subject to much debate, and has not been solved yet. No matter which variant of QM you use, it breaks down at some point. So making a declaratin about it on something that is not settled yet, is not fact or logic based. Not that that stops you. "On a related note, why do you find it so hard to avoid strawmen and flat out lies when debating someone? " I guess you have to resort to silly insults like that, since you don't have much to stand on. Lets see, you seem to think that QM is one theory (not a grouping of competeing views Coppenhaggen, many Worlds, ect), with a definate defintion. Simply not true. "Confused Native Americans", you should be ashamed of your self. Dover did not want to teach "People and Pandas". They wanted to read a true statment, taking about 2 minutes of time. Perhaps it was just a slippery lie to get started, but the court should deal with the actuall facts. But I see you want to yell "strawman" (what do you think that means BTW? you seem pretty confused) and call me a liar. OK So if Radioactive decay is truley random, how can it be used for dating purposes? Some scientists use a premise that it is random, but that is not a fact. The idea that it is a random event, and that it happens at paticular rates is kind of contradictory.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/27/2008 12:37:25 PM)
http://www.as.utexas.edu/astronomy/education/spring05/scalo/lectures/309L-2BBiomolA.pdf http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4910&page=1 Biochemistry. Amino acids are the building blocks of life.

DomKen -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/27/2008 1:40:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Lets see, you seem to think that QM is one theory (not a grouping of competeing views Coppenhaggen, many Worlds, ect), with a definate defintion. Simply not true. Copenhagen, Many Worlds, Quantum Logic etc. are interpretations of QM. They are not competing theories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics So a straw man claim. I argued QM and you threw up philosophy of science about QM. Notice how I talked about thing A but you argued against thing B which is only related to thing A. That is a straw man and I'll keep pointing out you use of them until you stop. quote: Dover did not want to teach "People and Pandas". They wanted to read a true statment, taking about 2 minutes of time. Perhaps it was just a slippery lie to get started, but the court should deal with the actuall facts. Actually they wanted to teach straight up biblical literal creationism but go told they'd get sued. http://ydr.inyork.com//ci_3219362?IADID=Search-ydr.inyork.com-ydr.inyork.com They then switched to ID but a judge appointed by GWB and supported by Rick Santorum determined that their action failed the the Lemon test as does ID as a whole. quote: But I see you want to yell "strawman" (what do you think that means BTW? you seem pretty confused) and call me a liar. OK You made this claim: quote: Which is wierd because you keep asserting that Darwinism is inherantly Atheistic. which is a lie and anyone who had actually read what I've written in this thread will be able to see that quite clearly. It is yet another in the long series of strawmen you've used in all your disagreements with me but another flat out lie. Not the first of yours I've documented and it seems likely that it won't be the last. quote: So if Radioactive decay is truley random, how can it be used for dating purposes? Some scientists use a premise that it is random, but that is not a fact. The idea that it is a random event, and that it happens at paticular rates is kind of contradictory. Who said random? Not me, I said not deterministic. No one can predict when a specific radioactive atom will decay. IOW another strawman. Although it should be pointed out that you seem to be equating random with equal distribution of probability which isn't right either. In situations where the initial quantity of radioactive material of a specific isotope is known we can measure the amount of radioactive isotope and the amount of decay products in a material to date the item approximately. Note that carbon 14 dating is now all messed up due to extra radiation in th atmosphere from atomic testing so anything alive since the 40's gives anomolous readings since we don't know the starting condition anymore. We do have other radioactive dating methods but they only work on igneous rock.

seeksfemslave -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/27/2008 1:50:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Abiogenesis is the theory of how life began. Correction, its an hypothesis quote: The theory of evolution is concerned with the diversity of life at the present and over time Again an hypothesis but in essence the quote is true.. quote: They are not interwined (1) they are truly independent(2) (1) You know that abiogenesis has stopped? Evolution is ongoing is it not ? (2)If B=evolution cannot occur if A =abiogenesis has NOT occured then A and B are not independant. You also commit a logical error in asserting that anyone who disagrees with you is a liar.

DomKen -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/27/2008 2:02:39 PM)
No, seeks I'm calling you and the people you crib from liars and have abundantly shown that to be correct. You're correct, I made a mistake in language of using the common meaning of theory, a guess, in a scientific discussion about abiogenesis. Specific ideas on how abiogenesis are hypotheses but there is of yet no theory of abiogenesis.. However one more time life began, however it happened, and the evolution began occuring and 3 billion years later we have the diversity of life we see all around us. Therfore we don't need to know how abiogenesis occured to explain the evolution we see all around us. As to whether or not abiogenesis has stopped? Good question. Presently the consensus is that with established life literally everywhere on earth it is unlikely that some new life could start getting organized and not get consumed by the 3 billion years more advanced life all around it. The very beginnings of life might be happening all the time in sun soaked puddles and the like but is promptly eaten by the existant life in the same vicinity. We are sure about this though all life we've found so far is indisputably descended from a common ancestor so no matter how many succesful abiobenesis events have occured all but one was pushed aside and wiped out by our ancestors.

Page: << < prev 10 11 12 [13] 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875