Navaros Posted March 3, 2004 Posted March 3, 2004 evolution is not a valid theory. does not MEET THE UNIVERAL SCIENTFIC STANDARDS to QUALIFY as a theoryevolution is sheer bollocks.it's not EVEN scientfic. LOL
GUNWOUNDS Posted March 3, 2004 Author Posted March 3, 2004 define: "evolution"evolution - biological change over time
Dude_Doc Posted March 3, 2004 Posted March 3, 2004 Yes, but nowadays evolution is also tied to the "beginning" of evolution. From what did we evolve? To apes, to dinosaurs, bacteria, which also links to the foundation of the Earth, the universe, and ultimately, what came before.
nemafakei Posted March 3, 2004 Posted March 3, 2004 "does not MEET THE UNIVERAL SCIENTFIC STANDARDS to QUALIFY as a theory"I was not aware that there were any such universally accepted standards (let alone univeral, hehe)."it's not EVEN scientfic."It's the most scientific, objective theory out there, even if it doesn't conform to these standards: since when did any creation theory come even remotely close?The theory of evolution, as first imagined, did indeed presume a creator. We can, however, see how life could have arisen from the primordal earth. I've posted it a few times now, and will try to find it again.
Filo Posted March 3, 2004 Posted March 3, 2004 I agree Gunwounds' fist post.But for me it's obvious that humanity, like all life kinds we know, is a biologic consequence of our planet evolution.If the earth had been distant, let's say, some hundred thousands kilometers less or more from the sun, life's conditions would be so much different (warmer or colder) that life wouldn't even appear on it.(Sorry for my english, I'm a basic frenchy!)Just have a look on the big difference between a snowy top of a mountain and a desert: only a few kilometers are enough to prevent even life! So the balance is so frail... For me, the planet doesn't fit to humanity owing to the creator who would put us on it, but humanity and all species do fit exactly to this planet, because it beared us, progressively. I would call it evolution.Darwin made mistakes I suppose, but I guess he was on the right way, and as about Galileo matter, the religious authorities don't want to hear about this theory, because it contradicts the Book (only reference for centuries).Now, Dude_Doc asks the best question : anyway how did it begin? What (some says who?) set in motion the miracle of life's appearance on the third stone from the sun?I think the answer is beyond our understanding, therefore it becomes a matter of faith.
Dude_Doc Posted March 3, 2004 Posted March 3, 2004 If the earth had been distant, let's say, some hundred thousands kilometers less or more from the sun, life's conditions would be so much different (warmer or colder) that life wouldn't even appear on it.Only a few meters would change everything.
Dante Posted March 3, 2004 Posted March 3, 2004 Actually the matter of how life began is similarly dealt with. Life is basically DNA and the biological processes involved in getting it from place to place. Someone recently managed to spontaneously create amino acids (And fragmentory DNA) by passing electricity through a mixture of common compounds and elements readily available during earth's development (eg Oxygen, Nitrogen, Hydrogen, water, other stuff...).He believes (and I believe) that this is how life began. A lightning strike to a cauldron of compounds.evolution is not a valid theory. does not MEET THE UNIVERAL SCIENTFIC STANDARDS to QUALIFY as a theoryevolution is sheer bollocks.it's not EVEN scientfic. LOLIf you even hope to be taken seriously you are going to have to provide far more clarification, not to mention proof, to back up that statement.
Acriku Posted March 3, 2004 Posted March 3, 2004 Something i was thinking about...with the controversy with evolution and creationism..although the origin of life is well within the province of biology ... evolutionary theory itself doesnt presume there to be a creator or not... evolutionary theory presumes life already exists (creator or not .. it is irrelevant) .. and only discusses the biological changes over time.so with regards to life's origin itself... evolution and creationism dont really clash.the clash only comes when trying to explain man's origins.. not the overall origin of life itself.You've just discovered what many people cannot grasp. The evolutionary theory cannot explain how life began, it can only explain how it developed - key to the Creationist V Evolutionist debate. Glad you're thinking GUNWOUND!Although, there is a clash when you get to the point that either God made humans from nothing, or they developed through evolution. However, God can very well be the mechanism behind evolution, who knows.Only a few meters would change everything.What you and Filo are talking about is something I've always thought. Sure, if some things were different, it would have been difficult to have life spring into existence, but it's precisely because certain things were just right that life began - so it doesn't have to be a big deal that life came about, as it did because it could. It doesn't mean that we should conclude that there must be a force behind it, also.
TMA_1 Posted March 3, 2004 Posted March 3, 2004 htey didnt create dna, but amino acids, but they were "right" and "left" handed acids. You can only have left or right acids to create proper DNA, otherwise they dont form correctly and cannot work out. It was rather unsuccessful.
nemafakei Posted March 3, 2004 Posted March 3, 2004 As to the 'low chances' argument, no matter how low the chances, there exists the anthropic principle: for all those situations (in time and space, et al.) where life never arose, there was no-one to notice that it didn't arise. For us to say 'wow, what an amazing coincidence', we ignore the fact that it is only where intelligence occurs that we even consider such things - our expericne is somewhat biased, alive as we are.Ther is also evidence to suggest that the 'coincidences' to do with universal constants and rules have such effects that changing one would affect the phenomena of the universe in more was than one, and the effect would still be the same. Either way, the anthropic principle applies in any case.
SurlyPIG Posted March 4, 2004 Posted March 4, 2004 I concur. I can't help but laugh at all the Jack Chic-ites that think evolution includes things like the big bang theory and the origin of life.There's the origin of life, and then there's the evolution of life. Not the same thing. People argue that evolution is bunk because of a lack of evidence to support the "primordial soup" theory. Nothing but a strawman. The evidence for evolution speaks for itself.However, I recently read in a PopSci mag that scientists were able to make a test tube of amino acids (a building block of life) by blasting nitrogen compounds with fire (bunsen burner) and lightning (high intensity electrical shocks).
Acriku Posted March 4, 2004 Posted March 4, 2004 As to the 'low chances' argument, no matter how low the chances, there exists the anthropic principle: for all those situations (in time and space, et al.) where life never arose, there was no-one to notice that it didn't arise. For us to say 'wow, what an amazing coincidence', we ignore the fact that it is only where intelligence occurs that we even consider such things - our expericne is somewhat biased, alive as we are.I tried to put it like the way you put it Nema, but you have your secret touch ;)
Dante Posted March 4, 2004 Posted March 4, 2004 htey didnt create dna, but amino acids, but they were "right" and "left" handed acids. You can only have left or right acids to create proper DNA, otherwise they dont form correctly and cannot work out. It was rather unsuccessful. Nonetheless, if it can be done once it can be done again... Eventually it will be done right. After all, how likely is it that the very first lightning strike was the one to start life?
Acriku Posted March 4, 2004 Posted March 4, 2004 I think you're missing the point TMA in that we're also progressing in our simulations of the beginnings of life. Pretty soon we might be able to create life in an environment much like what is theorized to be in the first couple billion of years on Earth.
Dante Posted March 4, 2004 Posted March 4, 2004 I already mentioned that technically we already have...
Recommended Posts