Spirituality
12 Mar 05
13 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusI am guessing because we haven't been at it for a billion years, or
If it is so logical, why hasn't anyone been able to do it yet? Looks like Nature is kicking our a**.
because we haven't simulated the original conditions properly or
any of another million different variables that we can only guess at
because we weren't there 4 billion years ago.
Here is an interesting link, Darfius, that might answer some of your
questions about it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
Nemesio
13 Mar 05
Originally posted by NemesioVery interesting stuff. Thanks for the link.
I am guessing because we haven't been at it for a billion years, or
because we haven't simulated the original conditions properly or
any of another million different variables that we can only guess at
because we weren't there 4 billion years ago.
Here is an interesting link, Darfius, that might answer some of your
questions about it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
Nemesio
However, even if life did randomly and spontaneously generate, why did it feel...er, randomly come upon...the need to replicate? Why didn't life just come to be and die? Replication seems like a goal to me.
13 Mar 05
Originally posted by Nemesio"....Experiments conducted under plausible primitiveearth conditions have resulted in the production of amino acids, large protein-like molecules made from long chains of amino acids, the nucleotide components of DNA, and DNA-like chains of these nucleotides. Many biologically interesting molecules have also been detected by astronomers using radiotelescopes. We can, therefore, explain how the early oxygen-free earth provided a hospitable site for the accumulation of molecules suitable for the construction of living systems. " Excerpt from "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences," National Academy Press, Washington, DC 1984
I am guessing because we haven't been at it for a billion years, or
because we haven't simulated the original conditions properly or
any of another million different variables that we can only guess at
because we weren't there 4 billion years ago.
Here is an interesting link, Darfius, that might answer some of your
questions about it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
Nemesio
13 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusI don't know the subject well enough to comment scientifically, so I will pass
However, even if life did randomly and spontaneously generate, why did it feel...er, randomly come upon...the need to replicate? Why didn't life just come to be and die? Replication seems like a goal to me.
the conch to the person who knows better.
I will hazzard a semi-educated guess:
As I said above, we have a few hundred labs with a few thousand pounds of
chemicals, equipment, lightning machines, &c working on simulating primordial
environments. When the earth was forming life way back then, there were
effectively, billions of tons of chemicals with billions of 'real labs' conducting
the experiment (to use an analogy on the link above, having everyone in
China fliping coins).
I would guess that life was created many, many times, but it lacked the 'urge'
to replicate and died. End of life. However, coincidently, life was created with
that 'urge' and then began to perpetuate, grow, develop, and evolve.
This is my guess and I fully admit I don't know the topic terribly well.
Nemesio
13 Mar 05
Originally posted by NemesioThen I would have to believe that it only stumbled upon that urge once, correct? Or did natural selection weed out the methods of replication that were...unsavory?
I don't know the subject well enough to comment scientifically, so I will pass
the conch to the person who knows better.
I will hazzard a semi-educated guess:
As I said above, we have a few hundred labs with a few thousand pounds of
chemicals, equipment, lightning machines, &c working on simulating primordial
environments. When the earth was formi ...[text shortened]... evolve.
This is my guess and I fully admit I don't know the topic terribly well.
Nemesio
13 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusI certainly don't know, and I suspect that no one knows. It's not
Then I would have to believe that it only stumbled upon that urge once, correct? Or did natural selection weed out the methods of replication that were...unsavory?
like we have a fossil record for proteins...
Or do we?
Dunno.
We would have to have stumbled on the urge at least once,
but, who knows, maybe there were 'competing proteins.'
It's an interesting question that I hope someone else can field.
Nemesio
13 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusPersonally, I think Nature is far more clever than we are. I mean,
Looks like Nature is kicking our a**.
consider how cool cameras are now. Wouldn't you say our eye is
about a million times cooler?
I mean, seriously, whenever I think about what is happening in order
for my brain to understand what I am looking at, my mouth just drops.
Light waves go through my pupil, through a lens, to my retina where
the inverted image of these are interpretted into electrical signals by
the optic nerve which sends these pulse to a part of my brain which then
translates them into information which tells me what I can see.
Honestly, that is major cool! It beats the pants off of a camera any
day of the week.
Nemesio
13 Mar 05
Originally posted by NemesioOk a good question. The light that goes into your eye, is it all absorbed by the body?
Personally, I think Nature is far more clever than we are. I mean,
consider how cool cameras are now. Wouldn't you say our eye is
about a million times cooler?
I mean, seriously, whenever I think about what is happening in order
for my brain to understand what I am looking at, my mouth just drops.
Light waves go through my pupil, through a lens, t ...[text shortened]... estly, that is major cool! It beats the pants off of a camera any
day of the week.
Nemesio
Nyxie
13 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioI completely agree about the product. Though I disagree over the producer! 🙂
Personally, I think Nature is far more clever than we are. I mean,
consider how cool cameras are now. Wouldn't you say our eye is
about a million times cooler?
I mean, seriously, whenever I think about what is happening in order
f ...[text shortened]... beats the pants off of a camera any
day of the week.
Nemesio
13 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioActually , I really can only guess they use X-ray Spectrography to measure something like fraunhaufer lines of the visible spectrum, but that's just an uninformed guess.
How are molecules detected by astronmers with radioscopes?
In DuhIamoutofmyleagueship,
Nemesio
13 Mar 05
Originally posted by frogstompDAMN!
Actually , I really can only guess the they use X-ray Spectrography to measure something like fraunhaufer lines of the visible spectrum, but that's just an uninformed guess.
It was so obvious and I didn't think about it!
Fraunhaufer lines! Of course!
DUH! Doesn't everyone know about them?
Nemesio
P.S., I don't understand more than 33% of your post
if you didn't catch that I was being sarcastic. 😉 I'm
just as much at sea as I was before you posted. 🙁
13 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusWell, for one thing, if life did spontaneously come into being and didn't reproduce, you wouldn't know anything about it. As far as I know, cells don't leave fossils. Am I incorrect?
Very interesting stuff. Thanks for the link.
However, even if life did randomly and spontaneously generate, why did it feel...er, randomly come upon...the need to replicate? Why didn't life just come to be and die? Replication seems like a goal to me.
Anyway, in order to get to the "life" definition, molecules which self replicated would have to have done so with many iterations before life evolved. Therefore there would already have been a long chain of self replication and there's no reason life shouldn't continue the already established pattern.