yeah, to people with a one track mind.
???
i don't mean any offense but how old are you?
i don't accept it simply because there is NO EVIDENCE for it.
For the alternative theorists:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
i don't mean any offense but how old are you?
Kind of like how there are no models for galaxy formation? I love this idea of arguing for a position by refusing to learn anything about it!
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bStudyorigins.shtml
Nobody weighed Jupiter in a lab, yet we have a pretty good idea of its weight. Nobody took a sample of material from the sun, yet we have a pretty good idea of what its made of.
One has to be profoundly ignorant or wish desperately to be so ignorant in order to limit all evidence to something found in a lab.
uh, huh, and the lab results that proves this explanation is where?
Generally, if someone is asking for scientific "proof", this means that they have no interest in science and merely want a way to obfuscate people away from the science and towards their own rhetorical point.
So, leopold, it really looks like you are some kind of jerk with an agenda and nothing else.
You could take a look at the page I recommended and follow some links, or you could learn about the Miller experiment and its successors somewhere else. Your choice.
in short you can't find any.
if you are referring to miller-urey, those experiments failed to produce life.
Again, you seem to favor the life-technique of sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring things you don't want to be true.
Again, if you equate the lack of lab results to a total lack of evidence, then it is not surprising that you don't believe in Newtonian gravity.
what, exactly, am i ignoring?
well, i'm still waiting for the lab results you imply i'm ignoring.
=================
Scripps Research Scientists Develop First Examples of RNA that Replicates Itself Indefinitely Without Any Help from Biology
Findings Could Inform Biochemical Questions about How Life Began
LA JOLLA, CA, January 8, 2009—One of the most enduring questions is how life could have begun on Earth. Molecules that can make copies of themselves are thought to be crucial to understanding this process as they provide the basis for heritability, a critical characteristic of living systems. Now, a pair of Scripps Research Institute scientists has taken a significant step toward answering that question. The scientists have synthesized for the first time RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely.
The work was published on Thursday, January 8, 2008, in Science Express, the advanced, online edition of the journal Science.
In the modern world, DNA carries the genetic sequence for advanced organisms, while RNA is dependent on DNA for performing its roles such as building proteins. But one prominent theory about the origins of life, called the RNA World model, postulates that because RNA can function as both a gene and an enzyme, RNA might have come before DNA and protein and acted as the ancestral molecule of life. However, the process of copying a genetic molecule, which is considered a basic qualification for life, appears to be exceedingly complex, involving many proteins and other cellular components.
For years, researchers have wondered whether there might be some simpler way to copy RNA, brought about by the RNA itself. Some tentative steps along this road had previously been taken by the Joyce lab and others, but no one could demonstrate that RNA replication could be self-propagating, that is, result in new copies of RNA that also could copy themselves.
The truth of lack of proof, would be helpful to the discussion, but the fear is, it but would open the door for alternate thinkers, since alternate thinkers will be more justified making an attempt, while finally sharing the same standard reserved for the consensus.
Just like you're waiting for the galaxy formation models?
If life did not arise from nonliving molecules how do you propose that life first arose?
In reply to Yazata, #15...I like your rebuttal.
But, why would anyone want to be another Feynman? A "media darling". (if Hawking were unknown, and posted here, or anywhere else...he would be "banned" in short
order) There exists no mechanism by which Hawking could "prove" his suppositional posits regarding gravity, save only calculus.
But, why would anyone want to be another Feynman? A "media darling". (if Hawking were unknown, and posted here, or anywhere else...he would be "banned" in short
order) There exists no mechanism by which Hawking could "prove" his suppositional posits regarding gravity, save only calculus.
thank you.
there are a number of possibilities.
1. life is infinite, it has always been here, somehow a product of an infinite universe.
2. life is somehow connected with quantum physics.
3. matter has a fundamental property called "life"
4. there is a god, although i can't picture an intelligence without substance.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Could we combine all 4 statements into one single expression : Life is a universal potential ?
In (4) , this would of course replace the concept of a sentient god with a non-sentient latency.
The difference between those possibilities and the hypothesis that life began here on Earth from non-living matter is that there is evidence for the hypothesis that life began on Earth from non-living matter and there is no evidence for any of those hypotheses.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
There are known organisms which might support the notion that life can exist elsewhere in the universe.
Have a look at this astounding tardigrade.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milnesium_tardigradum
My question is why the tardigrades evolved on earth to their present abilities to survive outer space conditions.
Oh, also check out the pictures of known tardigrades.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=milnesium+tardigradum&FORM=HDRSC2
Sure. And no reason to suppose that those organisms found there way here.
Because of Earth conditions? Why not read the literature?
Not entirely.
Panspermia doesn't address the origin of life, just the origin of life on earth. It offers the hypothesis that life on earth arrived from space (because life is ubiquitous) but is silent as to the origin - the first cause if you will, of that life.
It can't be "turtles all the way down" because relativity, from which we predict the big bang, predicts that at some point in the history of the universe, the universe was inhospitable to life, so even if we invoke panspermia as the origin of life on earth, we still have to deal with life arising from non life at least once somewhere in the universe at some point in the history of the universe.
You're evidence for it. Even if we accept panspermia, at some point in the history of the universe we made the transition from a universe inhospitable to life, to a universe teeming with it.