No, I enjoyed your posts. I was being short and to the point.
Last edited:
Why does the evolutionary process exist?
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
It's nice to not see complete drivel once in a while, and moreover, actually something that is informative and accurate.
enough?
enough?
Fags!
spuriousmonkey said:
Ahhhh. Yes. That was wonderful.
Then again, our exchange is yet more evidence that forum threads do not evolve. Rather they are subject to the second law of thermodynamics, and degrade with a gradual increase of entropy.
Now if only some higher-order being would come along and call the two of us "fags", the self-destruction of this thread would be complete.
edit: Too late.
lol I already did.
These questions about how seemingly impossible it would be for life to get kick-started frustrate me. There is absolutely no evidence that life has a hard time beginning. On the contrary, everywhere we look in the universe, we see potential places for life to brew. Even in interstellar space, when we use spectroscopy on debris floating in the void, we see the building blocks of biology.
The fact is, the chemistry of life is there because it so readily gets itself going. (I anthropomorphasize, sue me) The chemical nature of Carbon just lends itself to forming an amazing variety of blocks, which have the ability to create replicating chains (with a bit of luck and an energy source, both in abundance before life is there to choke off the process).
Once you have self-replicating chains... whizzBang... you are going to get some neat stuff. And the neater it is, the more of it you are going to get.
And don't forget that part of an eye is better than no eye at all. By this I mean... don't get lost in the seeming-complexity of what is around us today... instead, look at the simple things and see how they can lead to bigger and better stuff (being egotistical here). For instance, look at the way a houseplant leans toward a window and you can see the beginnings of an eyeball. All it takes is light-sensitive cells to have a use, and they will get ever-more complex. When you look at nature, you can see many examples of eyes, in all stages of complexity, that have obviously evolved in parallel.
Heck, look at how easy flight evolves. Is there a major animal group that doesn't fly? Mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, even plants have learned how to fly. I don't get why we think it is such an evolutionary accomplishment.
And forget the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument... that one is stale. Those people ignore the constant inflow of energy from the sun. The Earth is not a "closed system". Even if you pretend the solar system is a closed system, wait until the Sun runs out of enough fuel to combat the gravitational force of implosion, and you will see entropy win out. What we have right now is just a TEMPORARY buildup of complexity in a very localized spot, something that the 2nd law says nothing about.
Ahhh.... back on track. I hope I have built up enough order for this thread to withstand another few pages of increased entropy...
The fact is, the chemistry of life is there because it so readily gets itself going. (I anthropomorphasize, sue me) The chemical nature of Carbon just lends itself to forming an amazing variety of blocks, which have the ability to create replicating chains (with a bit of luck and an energy source, both in abundance before life is there to choke off the process).
Once you have self-replicating chains... whizzBang... you are going to get some neat stuff. And the neater it is, the more of it you are going to get.
And don't forget that part of an eye is better than no eye at all. By this I mean... don't get lost in the seeming-complexity of what is around us today... instead, look at the simple things and see how they can lead to bigger and better stuff (being egotistical here). For instance, look at the way a houseplant leans toward a window and you can see the beginnings of an eyeball. All it takes is light-sensitive cells to have a use, and they will get ever-more complex. When you look at nature, you can see many examples of eyes, in all stages of complexity, that have obviously evolved in parallel.
Heck, look at how easy flight evolves. Is there a major animal group that doesn't fly? Mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, even plants have learned how to fly. I don't get why we think it is such an evolutionary accomplishment.
And forget the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument... that one is stale. Those people ignore the constant inflow of energy from the sun. The Earth is not a "closed system". Even if you pretend the solar system is a closed system, wait until the Sun runs out of enough fuel to combat the gravitational force of implosion, and you will see entropy win out. What we have right now is just a TEMPORARY buildup of complexity in a very localized spot, something that the 2nd law says nothing about.
Ahhh.... back on track. I hope I have built up enough order for this thread to withstand another few pages of increased entropy...
swivel said:
Maybe it's because we have we not witnessed a single example of it happenning supported by the fact we can't we reproduce the effect.
All things we can't do ourselves are to US impossible they are impossible to US until they become possible by US. Does not mean that it is impossible to ............whatever, just to us.
Up late last night I see?Theoryofrelativity said:
As we say over here 'Its all a loada bollocks aint it'
Theoryofrelativity said:
I'm not following.
The building blocks of life are found floating around in space, and if you put them in a jar, and simulate lightening, you get some pretty complex polypeptides, and even some smaller amino acids and peptide chains.
And you are saying that since we can't create life in a test-tube that it is inconceivable how it could have happened on an early Earth without divine intervention?
Like I said, I'm not following.
I'm tellin' ya, ToR was up late last night, swillin' the juice.swivel said:
swivel said:
As I understand it the intention is rather to pose the question:
Unless you demonstrate the possibility, what is the difference between believing that something happened with no particular cause and believing that something divine was the cause, whatever you happen to want "divine" to mean?
They're both beliefs are they not?
--- Ron.
imaplanck. said:
superluminal said:
If you have nothing more intelligent than that to contribute, please shut up.
--- Ron.
Uh, Ron. Old buddy. It's a bit of fun. ToR and the Planckster and I are friends. It's ok. Settle down.perplexity said:
SOME life. As we indicated, we have only one example of a life-bearing planet. Our "gut" feeling is that life systems vastly different from ours are unlikely, that's all.Theoryofrelativity said:
Yes, imagine. The question that no one can answer very well is "is that even possible?".
Where'd that come from? Life not needing oxy is a far cry from putting it in space. There's evry reason to think that life (as we concieve of it - biological) could never exist in space. Space is generally a hell of high energy radiation - electromagnetic and particle.
By definition it did, right?
The difference is that the possibility is demonstrated. It's not a fuzzy belief. There are solid biochemical reasons to think that abiogenesis occurrs. Research the evidence for yourself and see.perplexity said:
Ha. So predictable. Thanks for making me smile.leopold99 said:
