The Doctor
Admiral
The Lord Thinkerton
Member of the ProBoards Peerage.
Posts: 2,896
|
Post by The Doctor on Jan 7, 2007 6:02:08 GMT -5
Now here's one, life on Earth, how did it start? And how did it get to what it is now? Well, what I think happened is that as the Earth formed in the early stages of the Solar System, it was bombarded by endless streams of meteors, and that coupled with volcanic activity on the surface sparked off a series of chemical reactions. As time went on and the reactions progressed, the byproducts of these reactions were amino acids and DNA. Now DNA has this certain nack, with a good supply of nutrients, it can replicate itself. So, that's what it did, and as it copied itself, mistakes were made in the replication; mutations. Now these mutations were a key ingredient, I believe, for the evolution of life on this planet. Also, the conditions on the planet changed and some mutations help species adapt to the new conditions. This process happened over millions of years and life progressed. Once every so often there were mass extinctions, but some species survived and so life goes on, and along comes a group of sapient, hominid ape-like creatures, which eventually evolved into humans, like us. A bit long winded, but this is the concise edition of what I think happened, an idea based on various scientific papers, books and websites. So, what do you think happened for life to appear on this planet? And be honest now..
|
|
xwingmom
Cadet
How you look at the world depends on where you are
Posts: 24
|
Post by xwingmom on Jan 8, 2007 10:38:38 GMT -5
Nice summation of the standard textbook theory....but I have a couple of questions for you. In the now famous experiment for the "spark of life", it was also noted that the self-same atmosphere that allowed that spark to start promptly killed it, as it could not survive in the current conditions. So how did it manage to replicate itself repeatedly?
Also new studies from the barrier reefs near Australia (National Geographic) have shown that the protobacterias that supposedly helped transform our atmosphere are still reproducing, but at such a rapid rate that scientists now are considering the possibility that "evolution" happened over an extremely short period of time and not over millions of years. So here's my second question...if we have to drastically reduce the rate of "evolution", what does that do to all the timelines that evolution needs to support it's theories?
And, according to science, since mutations are sterile, how do they reproduce?
since the first mutations obviously couldn't survive very long, (fish out of water) how can evolution be supported by so much death?
It seems to me that evolution provokes more questions than the answers it supplies, and possibly requires more "faith" to accept than what is required for believing in creation.
|
|
The Doctor
Admiral
The Lord Thinkerton
Member of the ProBoards Peerage.
Posts: 2,896
|
Post by The Doctor on Jan 8, 2007 12:46:40 GMT -5
Nice summation of the standard textbook theory....but I have a couple of questions for you. In the now famous experiment for the "spark of life", it was also noted that the self-same atmosphere that allowed that spark to start promptly killed it, as it could not survive in the current conditions. So how did it manage to replicate itself repeatedly? Also new studies from the barrier reefs near Australia (National Geographic) have shown that the protobacterias that supposedly helped transform our atmosphere are still reproducing, but at such a rapid rate that scientists now are considering the possibility that "evolution" happened over an extremely short period of time and not over millions of years. So here's my second question...if we have to drastically reduce the rate of "evolution", what does that do to all the timelines that evolution needs to support it's theories? And, according to science, since mutations are sterile, how do they reproduce? since the first mutations obviously couldn't survive very long, (fish out of water) how can evolution be supported by so much death? It seems to me that evolution provokes more questions than the answers it supplies, and possibly requires more "faith" to accept than what is required for believing in creation. First, not all mutations are sterile. I don't know where you read that but that simply isn't the case. Furthermore, DNA and Amino Acids are VERY durable; in the primative conditions in which they were formed it was hostile, but they survived. Here's the Wikipedia article on Evolution. Now, judging by the complexity of life on Earth now, and judging by evidence provided by rock and ice core samples, evolution did take millions of years. And, if those protobacteria you spoke of do exist, Evolution is accompanied by a theory called 'Natural Selection", survival of the fittest and what have you. Now those protobacteria, where they are now, are living in conditions which are suitable for them, so genetic change was not necessary. Elsewhere conditions were changing, as a result genetic change was needed. How much do you really know about Evolution anyway?
|
|
xkamelx
Global Moderator
Check Those Corners
Posts: 11,108
|
Post by xkamelx on Jan 9, 2007 16:52:18 GMT -5
It is true that the atmosphere that existed when life sparked could not sustain life as it is today, specifically speaking, mammal life.
The byproducts of the early organisms and plant life did change the atmosphere, but life adapted. Some died out, while others mutated, evolved to survive, natural selection like The Thinker stated.
Consequently, I do believe life started in the it was explained in the initial post of this thread. Everything, all of our elements, including the iron in our blood was created when a nebula became our sun, then our planet. We are stardust. As I stated in the size of the universe thread in the Neutral Zone, given a long enough time line, anything and all things are possible, even the marvel of life.
|
|
The Doctor
Admiral
The Lord Thinkerton
Member of the ProBoards Peerage.
Posts: 2,896
|
Post by The Doctor on Jan 10, 2007 15:27:46 GMT -5
Regarding the origin of life on Earth, you can look at it from two ways, the Religious Way or the Scientific Way. Now I look at it from the Scientific Way I believe that is Evolution that's responsible for life on this planet.
Now the Religious Way on the other hand, says that God created the Earth and its life. Now to me, this theory carries very little scientific merit. Evolution on the other hand, there's burgeoning evidence to support that. Unfortunately there are those out there who are narrow minded enough to attribute that evidence to Creation, or ignore it.
But I sincerly believe that a series of chemical reactions that took place when the Earth was young, was responsible for the life on this planet, and Evolution took over from then on.
Just my tuppence worth really.
|
|
xwingmom
Cadet
How you look at the world depends on where you are
Posts: 24
|
Post by xwingmom on Jan 11, 2007 10:38:09 GMT -5
Thinker: How much to you really know about evolution anyway? Actually, quite a bit....and I didn't do my research on Wikkipedia . The artcile on the protobacteria actually came from a National Geographic article by scientists who claimed the stuff was the same as in the original goop that spawned our atmosphere. It will take me a while, but I can go through all my back issues and find it for you if you'd like. Thinker: Now, the Religious way....carries very little scientific merit. Quoting from National Geographic V185, No. 1, page 12 "In the beginning,all that is our universe was incredibly small and dense. Neither space nor time exited. At the moment of the big bang, somehow, all matter, energy, space, and time suddenly exploded from the original singularity. As the universe began to differentiate gravity became a separatie force, and there was the first day (plankc time. 10-43 seconds)" And this differes from the poetical language of Genesis (which states that all was null and void ;and God said let there be light and there was light) exactly how? Both theories have something coming from nothingness wtih a suddeness that takes one's breath away. Both follow the same logical progression of events, from simple to complex. Just how much do you know about creation, anyway?
|
|
The Doctor
Admiral
The Lord Thinkerton
Member of the ProBoards Peerage.
Posts: 2,896
|
Post by The Doctor on Jan 11, 2007 11:19:01 GMT -5
How much do I know of Creation?
Enough to realise that it carries very little scientific merit that's for sure. The idea of some almighty creating the world is one thing, but the fact that it carries no proof makes it a tad absurd.
We're not talking about the origin of the universe here anyway!
|
|