Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    22 Feb '13 13:39
    http://phys.org/news/2013-02-primitive-complex-human-amoeba.html

    Showing how our immune system came about from very primitive amoeba.
  2. 22 Feb '13 14:52 / 3 edits
    Life has existed on Earth for about 4 billion years but multicellular life did not appear until about 1.2 billion years and thus, for most of life history ( more than two-thirds ), life consisted of unicellular life which implies, perhaps surprisingly, the evolutionary move from unicellular to true multicellular life was an extremely hard one.

    This research appears to give a clue why; it implies that, as an accident of evolution, there has to just happen to be preexisting facilities in an unicellular species that make it then credible to evolve into multicellular BUT, judging by the fact that it took almost half the history of life (somewhere between 2.1 and 2.7 billion years ago) before eukaryote species evolved to have those facilities, I would guess the chances of those preexisting facilities existing in a unicellular species is not generally very likely to come about.

    I reckon that this also implies that, if we find life on another planet, it would probably be just all unicellular and microbial.
  3. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    22 Feb '13 14:58
    Originally posted by humy
    Life has existed on Earth for about 4 billion years but multicellular life did not appear until about 1.2 billion years and thus, for most of life history ( more than two-thirds ), life consisted of unicellular life which implies, perhaps surprisingly, the evolutionary move from unicellular to true multicellular life was an extremely hard one.

    This research ...[text shortened]... t, if we find life on another planet, it would probably be just all multicellular and microbial.
    What it implies is that living things did not arise by a series of accidents, but that God designed structures to support the life properties a little over 6000 years ago.

    HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
  4. 22 Feb '13 15:12 / 7 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    What it implies is that living things did not arise by a series of accidents, but that God designed structures to support the life properties a little over 6000 years ago.

    HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
    What it implies is that living things did not arise by a series of accidents


    evolution isn't 'just' a “ series of accidents” (if that is what you are saying?). Natural selection is inevitable in any environment where there is self-replicating life.
    None of the info here implies that evolution didn't happen.

    but that God designed structures to support the life properties a little over 6000 years ago.


    it implies nothing of the sort. Exactly HOW does any of the info in the link or my post in any way imply that? -can you explain to us all your logical steps of deduction from premise from the info in the link or from my post to the conclusion of "God designed structures" and that 6000 years ago figure....
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    22 Feb '13 16:04
    Originally posted by humy
    Life has existed on Earth for about 4 billion years but multicellular life did not appear until about 1.2 billion years and thus, for most of life history ( more than two-thirds ), life consisted of unicellular life which implies, perhaps surprisingly, the evolutionary move from unicellular to true multicellular life was an extremely hard one.

    This research ...[text shortened]... hat, if we find life on another planet, it would probably be just all unicellular and microbial.
    The latest theories about that is life may appear on planets around red dwarf's. The implication there being that those dwarf stars outlive our sun by billions of years, giving the chance therefore that if life developed and evolved on a planet lucky enough to be in that star's goldilocks zone, there will be much more time for life to evolve from uni to multi cellular forms. Our sun is only 1/3 the age of the universe but there are red dwarf's in our galaxy almost as old as the galaxy itself which is something like 12 billion years old.
  6. 22 Feb '13 17:49
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    The latest theories about that is life may appear on planets around red dwarf's. The implication there being that those dwarf stars outlive our sun by billions of years, giving the chance therefore that if life developed and evolved on a planet lucky enough to be in that star's goldilocks zone, there will be much more time for life to evolve from uni to mul ...[text shortened]... n our galaxy almost as old as the galaxy itself which is something like 12 billion years old.
    yes, that is a point.
  7. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    22 Feb '13 20:09
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    The latest theories about that is life may appear on planets around red dwarf's. The implication there being that those dwarf stars outlive our sun by billions of years, giving the chance therefore that if life developed and evolved on a planet lucky enough to be in that star's goldilocks zone, there will be much more time for life to evolve from uni to mul ...[text shortened]... n our galaxy almost as old as the galaxy itself which is something like 12 billion years old.
    That is all nonsense. It may be good enough for science fiction like "Star Trek" and "Star Wars", but not good enough for real science.
  8. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    22 Feb '13 20:15
    Originally posted by humy
    What it implies is that living things did not arise by a series of accidents


    evolution isn't 'just' a “ series of accidents” (if that is what you are saying?). Natural selection is inevitable in any environment where there is self-replicating life.
    None of the info here implies that evolution didn't happen.

    [quote] but that God de ...[text shortened]... my post to the conclusion of "God designed structures" and that 6000 years ago figure....
    You write, "I would guess the chances of those preexisting facilities existing in a unicellular species is not generally very likely to come about."

    That is because God had to do His part, which you blindly overlook.

    HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
  9. 22 Feb '13 20:41
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You write, "I would guess the chances of those preexisting facilities existing in a unicellular species is not generally very likely to come about."

    That is because God had to do His part, which you blindly overlook.

    HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
    Have you ever thought of asking RHP for your own Forum ? Or does your faith require input from non-religious sources in order to survive ?
  10. Standard member Thequ1ck
    Fast above
    22 Feb '13 21:24 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You write, "I would guess the chances of those preexisting facilities existing in a unicellular species is not generally very likely to come about."

    That is because God had to do His part, which you blindly overlook.

    HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
    I paused the video you posted at 'the probabilities of this occurring are beyond
    comprehension'

    'God' is beyond comprehension so why keep harping on about something you
    admit to not understanding?

    I would be more at ease if you made a clear differentiation between your own
    belief in 'God' and the proposed entity that the bible describes.
  11. Subscriber Kewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    22 Feb '13 22:27
    Please, please, please, DON'T FEED THE TROLL! Just ignore it, it's the only way for this forum to survive.
  12. 22 Feb '13 22:33 / 7 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You write, "I would guess the chances of those preexisting facilities existing in a unicellular species is not generally very likely to come about."

    That is because God had to do His part, which you blindly overlook.

    HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
    For there to be occasional improbable occurrences is mathematically inevitable therefore do not require some kind of divine intervention just for being improbable.
    So there is no logical contradiction between something improbable occurring and there being no god nor is there a contradiction between there being a god but that god having noting to do with that improbable event -your implied conclusion does not logically follow from your implied premise.
  13. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    22 Feb '13 23:35
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    That is all nonsense. It may be good enough for science fiction like "Star Trek" and "Star Wars", but not good enough for real science.
    The ONLY thing you care about in science is if you can use it as a weapon in your insane and truly stupid idea the earth is 6000 years old.
  14. 22 Feb '13 23:44
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    Please, please, please, DON'T FEED THE TROLL! Just ignore it, it's the only way for this forum to survive.
    Oh Kewpie please lets keep him ,we can feed him on tit bits and get him going around in circles like a pet hamster. I've even thought of a name for him,"Black Hole", the point at which all logic and reason breaks down and Trolls do live in holes!!!!
  15. Standard member Kepler
    Demon Duck
    23 Feb '13 00:16
    Originally posted by OdBod
    Oh Kewpie please lets keep him ,we can feed him on tit bits and get him going around in circles like a pet hamster. I've even thought of a name for him,"Black Hole", the point at which all logic and reason breaks down and Trolls do live in holes!!!!
    I want a slap with wet fish facility built into this site. I'd use it as often as possible on Revd. Hindquarters.