Originally posted by twhiteheadIm not saying its not possible, i just think so, i have no hard evidence to back it up. Only my reasoning.
There is a lot of life forms on Earth that would live quite happily live on mars. I see no reason why the other way around would not be possible.
Earth has many many life forms, of which most extremely adapted to thier environment. Mars is not that crowded with life, so i think that IF there is life it will not be some kind of super lifeform that fits great in all kinds of environments. I think it will most likely be very adapted to mars and will probably die by the high amount of oxygen in our atmosphere, or other gasses.
You say alot of life forms on Earth could live good on mars, im not to sure about this either, you mean in water?
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIt comes down to this; you can pick anything like the eyes and say
You are not going to single handedly set the agenda for this debate. You are attempting to keep the debate on the difficulties with the natural origins theory rather than face the manifest problems with the intelligent design conjecture. You hope that rubbishing the natural origins theory will leave an explanatory vacuum into which intelligent design c ...[text shortened]... le amounts of evidence for the natural origins theory. It is time for you to present your side.
this is how it occurred, but you still run into the same issues! The point
is the process has to come under examination, can what is being
proposed actually do what is being suggested, the way it was being
proposed? The difficulties are there throughout the process, our
bodies are made of many different systems that required several
things all working together to achieve specific tasks. With abiogenesis
we have many things that have to be just right, but so too is say
getting eye sight just right you should at least see that all the pit falls
that are present with abiogenesis. Those issues do not go away later
in the process of evolution as it is described where all changes are a
result of the random mutations being filtered through natural selection.
The process can only act upon the mutations within DNA through
natural selection, but like all computer programs you can write code
to do something no matter what, or act upon some input given to
the program. If the software doesn’t know how to handle any new
input it either crashes, spit out an error message, or ignore the
unknown input; however, with DNA in life the true believers in that
process believe it not only figures out what to do no matter what the
change is, but simply builds up a more complex living system all
the while.
Kelly
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay….Those issues do not go away later
It comes down to this; you can pick anything like the eyes and say
this is how it occurred, but you still run into the same issues! The point
is the process has to come under examination, can what is being
proposed actually do what is being suggested, the way it was being
proposed? The difficulties are there throughout the process, our
bodies are made ...[text shortened]... er what the
change is, but simply builds up a more complex living system all
the while.
Kelly
in the process of evolution as it is described where all changes are a
result of the random mutations being filtered through natural selection.
..…
Why not?
….The process can only act upon the mutations within DNA through
natural selection, but like all computer programs you can write code
to do something no matter what, or act upon some input given to
the program. If the software doesn’t know how to handle any NEW
input it either crashes, spit out an error message, or ignore the
unknown input; however, with DNA in life the true believers in that
process believe it not only figures out what to do no matter what the
change is, but simply builds up a more complex living system all
the while.
..… (my emphasis)
don’t know what you mean -clarify:
In the context of life, can you give a specific example of a “NEW input” that would prevent evolution working and explain in detail in what way this “NEW input” would prevent evolution from working?
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayA genome is not a computer program. This is an analogy that fails when you push at it.
It comes down to this; you can pick anything like the eyes and say
this is how it occurred, but you still run into the same issues! The point
is the process has to come under examination, can what is being
proposed actually do what is being suggested, the way it was being
proposed? The difficulties are there throughout the process, our
bodies are made ...[text shortened]... er what the
change is, but simply builds up a more complex living system all
the while.
Kelly
Computer programs are encodings of mathematical operations. Programs take inputs and do completely stereotypical things with them. They do not copy themselves, unless specifically encoded to do so, and they do not change, except viruses and their polymorphism is a form of stealth, not of changing functionality.
DNA codes for proteins. How the gene interacts with its environment depends on factors involving the cell cytoplasm and the extracellular environment. A change in a gene is often either fatal or a null change (changing one letter can lead to the same protein being produced) - but not invariably so. With species populations in the millions or billions the likelihood of finding individuals with fitness increasing mutations (i.e. a new gene that is good) is not so low as you seem to think. The process at the level of DNA is not fully understood, there are genes for regulating mutations, and correcting errors.
Abiogenesis almost certainly did not involve DNA. Initially heredity and metabolism was almost certainly based on RNA. Metabolic processes were handed over to proteins (more effective) and, probably later, DNA increasingly became used for heredity as it´s more stable. RNA kept it´s messenger/regulator status. There are dozens of major steps between the first cell-like structures and the emergence of multi-cellular life (never mind something like us). But there has been a considerable amount of time for it to happen in.
It doesn´t have to be ¨all just right¨. Life is pretty robust, and survives all sorts of disasters. Abiogenesis did not require ideal conditions either. It required a reducing environment and the presence of some chemicals which are known to have been present. Ultra-violet light was probably also important as it stimulates polymerization of RNA molecules, but that is not a problem as before there was an ozone layer there will have been plenty of UV. The notion that everything had to be just so is a misconception on your part.
Originally posted by KellyJayAnother thing you can't understand: You have a belief system that requires the earth to have gone through all it's known changes in only 10,000 years or less. In the real universe, the earth is billions of years old, I think you believe or half beleive it cannot be that old. The conditions you speak of needing to be 'just right' can happen a lot in several billion years. Billions of years compared to our etherial existance cannot even be imagined, fit into a human mind, the actuality of it. That fact muddles the recognition of the amount of reactions that can can occur by chance. You seem to think there would only be a few thousand chances for life to have started when in fact there would have been trillions of such possible times and it has been proven to have occurred not just once but several times. It may be a crap shoot but look at the lottery: One chance in ten million for a win but there are millions of players which pretty much forces a win every time. The same with pre-biotic chemistry, but not one chance in a million but it doesn't matter on a relatively benign planet like Earth, you get literally quadrillions of chances, which you have to process into your mind before it can wrap around the incredible gulf of time separating human existance from the ages of Earth.
It comes down to this; you can pick anything like the eyes and say
this is how it occurred, but you still run into the same issues! The point
is the process has to come under examination, can what is being
proposed actually do what is being suggested, the way it was being
proposed? The difficulties are there throughout the process, our
bodies are made ...[text shortened]... er what the
change is, but simply builds up a more complex living system all
the while.
Kelly