spuriousmonkey said:I got Sarkus' point and I don't have an IQ of 155.
finally we have the answer to all the hostility
spuriousmonkey said:I got Sarkus' point and I don't have an IQ of 155.
I do hope that was genuine understanding and not sarcasm, because that statement is the heart of the matter. Several posters have stated the same thing in slightly different ways.Theoryofrelativity said:so evolution began because evolution began, it's much clearer now.
Now. Just watch TofR. I am about to offend the sensibilities of some scientists. I trust none are included in the posters and lurkers to this thread.Theoryofrelativity said:"If they had not evolved these characteristics they would not live."
I said this in my first post, how did the first life forms live bearing in mind the absence of the evolutionary process.
Theoryofrelativity said:finally we have the answer to all the hostility
Ophiolite said:Evolution predates life.
Satyr said:A more interesting question:
Why do people with 155 IQ still display such thickness?
What’s the missing element to harness all that brain power?
Are you saying a backbone and an adequate container needs to evolve to support and protect such a magnificently powerful tool as she, so obviously, possesses?spuriousmonkey said:That kind of unlimited brainpower requires the reinforcement of the cranial bones resulting in a increase of 'density' and 'thickness'.
I know, I know. I was just overcome with a wave of honesty. Do you think they'll take my degree away?spuriousmonkey said:You gave away a trade secret! Dam you. Although we tell the public that abiogenesis and evolution are seperate concepts, in our hearts they are not.
Ahh, the boyz have arrived. Excellent. I hope you're double-jointed.Excuse me, I have to answer the door. A dark limousine has just pulled up.
Not yet. But if you start saying that it's all tautological, really, and can be summarised as "that which is more likely to continue to exist, is more likely to continue to exist" ... then people will start calling you a statistician. And then nobody will believe you. (Lies, damn lies.)Ophiolite said:I know, I know. I was just overcome with a wave of honesty. Do you think they'll take my degree away?
Ophiolite said:If you imagine, for simplicity, that there are only two such series present in the soup then the one which progresses more rapidly will predominate in its use of the raw chemicals. Over time it will displace the other reaction. This is evolution at the chemical and proto-biochemical level.
By the time the complexity of chemical activity had risen to the point where it might be called life evolution had already been in place an operational for some time.
Does this make it any clearer?
perplexity said:Less so for me because I'd thought that the inference of "evolution" was quite specific: DNA changes.
If there is a better definition, what is it, please?
--- Ron.
No, because the world is replete with organisms that thrive on all kinds of organic material. There is no opportunity for life to originate a second time.*Theoryofrelativity said:Ok, so is this process still occurring ?
And are life forms still springing into existance in the absence of a genetic predeccessor?
I can't think of any links off hand. I'll dip into some textbooks and suggest some passages that could help you. I;m thinking Stuart Kauffman.Theoryofrelativity said:meanwhile do you have link that describes the process you describe so I can look at it further?
Ophiolite said:No, because the world is replete with organisms that thrive on all kinds of organic material. There is no opportunity for life to originate a second time.*
I can't think of any links off hand. I'll dip into some textbooks and suggest some passages that could help you. I;m thinking Stuart Kauffman.
Wait - I'm displaying all the memory skills of a dehydrated kumquat. I believe I have several research papers that address specific aspects of this. Let me locate them. I'll be in touch.
*Let's not drift on in to the side topic of how many times life might have originated independently on Earth.
Theoryofrelativity said:Yockey
"One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.[/COLOR]"
I do not know why you describe the 'soup' as not sterile. It had no life. To me that defines it as sterile. What it did have were a rich complexity of organic molecules that could provide raw materials for life when it did arise, and certain molecules that were moving towards an ability to replicate systematically, that would use those (indeed were using) those raw materials.Theoryofrelativity said:meanwhile.............how can there be no opportunity for life to originate a second time?
We know life does not pop into existance in a sterile environment so was the 'soup' not sterile? Doesn't NOT sterile indicate prescence of organisms?
Is there a contradiction here?