Is there life elsewhere?

[dzerklis]

LA-girl, that is interesting, i didn't know anything about it, but i'm sure its something about aliens again, example, Heaven most likely is a gigantic spaceship, not a city.. just kidding!

That's probably completely true, but why does this "truth" whose traces are left in the bible, have to be referring to aliens...I mean it could be anything! The universal flood could be in reality the formation of the caspian sea, the plural "Gods" could be as I said a remnant of politheism, the migration from egypt a historical fact...[..]
Couldn't the bible be simply a collection of such "pieces" of historical events, filtered through some imagination? Why taking the trouble of putting aliens into the picture?

Quixote, Langbein didn't have the idea about aliens first, he came to this realization step by step, studying the Bible and other historic materials for a long time. In fact, it doesn't even matter if those intelligent creatures were aliens or creatures from a parallel universe or people of ancient, highly developed civilization (which i personally find unlikely due to lack of evidence).

 

[LA-girl]

Dzerklis:

Heaven most likely is a gigantic spaceship, not a city.. just kidding!

Well, in fact you are into something. Not that heaven is a spaceship, but the gigantic new city of Jerusalem which is being prepared in heaven right now could maybe be characterised as a space-ship (a huge one!) as it says that the city will ascend down to this planet after the 1000 years milennium and will be the capitol of this earth made new. (according to the Bible) :wink:

Ehm...I'm a bit late on the debate, I see it has been progressing, but answering LAgirl about evolutionary theory, it seems that the main point in that quoted article was that evolution works through selection, and selection consists of destroying pieces of information, so an increase in complexity (inpliying an increase in the amount of information) through evolution is impossible.

Well the fact is, selection destroys some useless mutations, with loss of "information" but then the new mutations themselves, continuously occurring in the selected individuals, could be seen as increasing the total amount of information, so that the balance is positive...maybe, I don't know

But you see most mutations don't make things slowly better as the evolution theory implies. In fact you have a downward spiral into mistakes, not a higher spiral going upward in higher forms of complexity. Most mutations are in fact harmful, often lethal to the organism. So if the mutations were to accumulate the result would more likely be a DEVOLUTION rather than evolution.

(By chance or design)

 

[cLavain]

But you see most mutations don't make things slowly better as the evolution theory implies. In fact you have a downward spiral into mistakes, not a higher spiral going upward in higher forms of complexity. Most mutations are in fact harmful, often lethal to the organism. So if the mutations were to accumulate the result would more likely be a DEVOLUTION rather than evolution.

Only partially correct. It is true that most mutations are not beneficial, in fact the vast majority are not. But this does not lead to devolution because:

1) Beneficial mutations have a great advantage over the unfavourable ones. If a mutation makes it harder for a creature to survive, then most likely it will die and so will the bad mutation! If it's lethal as you say, then the creature will obviously die instantly, and that's that. But if it is beneficial then it will likely live long enough to create offsprings. Thus: Severe errors are automatically weeded out of the gene pool, while good mutations are automatically accumulated. If you really understand this, then you will see how the system is geared towards increasing the complexity, and not the other way around. Mutation is random; natural selection is the very opposite of random.

2) Mutations are very rare. The body is extremely efficent at copying DNA, it can copy millions of gene pairs with no errors. Again, natural selection has made it so. Lifeforms that were rubbish at copying DNA aren't around anymore!

3) Not only are mutations rare, but large mutations that severely handicap a creature are even more rare. So most mutations are more or less neutral, i.e. they don't really matter enough to make a difference.

4) The fact that bacterias can develop resistance shows that natural selection works in practice.

The situation you are describing, LA-girl, is a lot like inbreeding. Lack of variety means that bad mutations can indeed accumulate, but this is usually avoided as creatures who mate with their own family is unlikely to survive for many generations. You see how natural selection constantly rectifies potential problems? It's amazing! It's not even a conscious process, it just works! Simple, beautiful, and cruel.

 

[LA-girl]

1) Beneficial mutations have a great advantage over the unfavourable ones. If a mutation makes it harder for a creature to survive, then most likely it will die and so will the bad mutation! If it's lethal as you say, then the creature will obviously die instantly, and that's that. But if it is beneficial then it will likely live long enough to create offsprings. Thus: Severe errors are automatically weeded out of the gene pool, while good mutations are automatically accumulated. If you really understand this, then you will see how the system is geared towards increasing the complexity, and not the other way around. Mutation is random; natural selection is the very opposite of random.

Take a look at this example to show that although there are a few cases of favourable mutations, what happens is that in stead of adding information, they destroy or corrupt information.

Wingless beetles
(Adapted from Beetle Bloopers)

For example, beetles losing their wings. A particular winged beetle type lives on large continental areas; the same beetle type on a small windy island has no wings.

What happened is easy to imagine. Every now and then in beetle populations, there might be a mutational defect which prevents wings from forming. That is, the ‘wing-making’ information is lost or scrambled in some way.

The damaged gene (a gene is like a long ‘sentence’ carrying one part of the total instructions recorded on the DNA) is then going to be passed to all that beetle’s offspring, and to their offspring, as it is copied over and over. All these descendant beetles will be wingless.

If a beetle with such a wingless defect is living on the Australian mainland, for example, it will have less chance to fly away from beetle-eaters, so it will be more likely to be eliminated by ‘survival of the fittest’ before it can leave offspring. Such so-called ‘natural selection’ can help to eliminate (or at least reduce the buildup of) such genetic mistakes.

However, on the windy island, the beetles which can fly tend to get blown into the sea, so not having wings is an advantage. In time, the elimination of all the winged ones will ensure that only those of this new ‘wingless’ variety survive, which have therefore been ‘naturally selected’.

‘There!’ says the evolutionist. ‘A favourable mutation—evolution in action!’ However, it fails to make his case, because though beneficial to survival, it is still a defect—a loss or corruption of information. This is the very opposite of what evolutionists need to demonstrate real evolution.

To support belief in a process which has allegedly turned molecules into man would require mutations to add information. Showing that information-losing defects can give a survival advantage is irrelevant, as far as evidence for real evolution is concerned.

2) Mutations are very rare. The body is extremely efficent at copying DNA, it can copy millions of gene pairs with no errors. Again, natural selection has made it so. Lifeforms that were rubbish at copying DNA aren't around anymore!

Yes, mutations are rare. While you conclude that the explanation of the extremely efficient process the body have of copying gene pairs (BREATHE) with no errors has been developed through narural selection, my view is that God made us perfect from the beginnning, not just humans, but the whole world and everything in it. (Surprise surprise!) :wink:

3) Not only are mutations rare, but large mutations that severely handicap a creature are even more rare. So most mutations are more or less neutral, i.e. they don't really matter enough to make a difference.

Yes, I agree that most mutations are neutral.

4) The fact that bacterias can develop resistance shows that natural selection works in practice.

What has this to do with the evolution of new kinds with new genetic information? Precisely nothing. What has happened in many cases is that some bacteria already had the genes for resistance to the antibiotics. In fact, some bacteria obtained by thawing sources which had been frozen before man developed antibiotics have shown to be antibiotic-resistant. When antibiotics are applied to a population of bacteria, those lacking resistance are killed, and any genetic information they carry is eliminated. The survivors carry less information, but they are all resistant. The same principle applies to rats and insects ‘evolving’ resistance to pesticides. Again, the resistance was already there, and creatures without resistance are eliminated.

While natural selection might work in practise in some areas do not prove evolution at all. Did you know that 25 years before Darwins "origin of species" was published a creationist, Edward Blyth, thought of the concept of natural selection? But unlike evolutionists, Blyth regarded it as a conservative process that would remove defective organisms, thus conserving the health of the population as a whole. Only when coupled with hypothetical information-gaining mutations could natural selection be creative.


Man, this is starting to get complicated! :lol:

(My answers area mixture of my own reasoning (Ok, maybe just 5 %) :wink: and different sources)

Variation and natural selection versus evolution
by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.
Has evolution really been observed?

 

[cLavain]

Take a look at this example to show that although there are a few cases of favourable mutations, what happens is that in stead of adding information, they destroy or corrupt information.

Strawman argument. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
No evolutionist I'm aware of has claimed that periods of regression do not occur, so your quote is irrelevant to the argument.

4) The fact that bacterias can develop resistance shows that natural selection works in practice.

What has this to do with the evolution of new kinds with new genetic information? Precisely nothing. What has happened in many cases is that some bacteria already had the genes for resistance to the antibiotics. In fact, some bacteria obtained by thawing sources which had been frozen before man developed antibiotics have shown to be antibiotic-resistant.

Ever heard of natural antibiotics?

When antibiotics are applied to a population of bacteria, those lacking resistance are killed, and any genetic information they carry is eliminated. The survivors carry less information, but they are all resistant. The same principle applies to rats and insects ‘evolving’ resistance to pesticides. Again, the resistance was already there, and creatures without resistance are eliminated.

Documentation from a reputable scientific site, please.

(My answers area mixture of my own reasoning (Ok, maybe just 5 %) Wink and different sources)

You could make it clearer when you are quoting. Would be easier to read.

 

[Quixote]

When antibiotics are applied to a population of bacteria, those lacking resistance are killed, and any genetic information they carry is eliminated. The survivors carry less information, but they are all resistant. The same principle applies to rats and insects ‘evolving’ resistance to pesticides. Again, the resistance was already there, and creatures without resistance are eliminated. [/color][/b]

Documentation from a reputable scientific site, please.

I think what she describes is true, but it's not at all inconsistent with evolution. In fact, if you think about it, it is simply evolution observed during a short span of time. If you study a group of rats for ten years you will notice some clear effects of selection, without "creation of information" as you say. In a longer timespan, however, long enough for meaningful mutations to occur and to spread in the population (by means of successive "waves" of selection") you should see real evolution occurring. It may not be easily observable, but once you accept the notion that DNA does mutate randomly, I don't see how this could result in anything but the natural process than we call "evolution" (a uselessy positive sounding term for a "neutral" process)

Apart from this, I find the whole argument of "information" creation and loss purposely misleading. It looks like if the person who wrote the piece was purposely trying to distract the reader from the facts by using very general words that can be used to form fake-logic propositions.

A bit like this: "Animals are living creatures, dogs are animals, dogs are therefore alive. This dead dog lying here is thus necessarily alive" The trick here is to use word alive with a certain freedom of interpretation, but calling evolution "an increase in information" is not much different. Why should the disappearence of body parts be a loss of information for example? I don't see the sentence "to be red" as containing necessarily less information than "to NOT be red". If you think of DNA as containing building instructions, or sentences, you should see what I mean...

 

[cLavain]

I think what she describes is true, but it's not at all inconsistent with evolution. In fact, if you think about it, it is simply evolution observed during a short span of time. If you study a group of rats for ten years you will notice some clear effects of selection, without "creation of information" as you say. In a longer timespan, however, long enough for meaningful mutations to occur and to spread in the population (by means of successive "waves" of selection") you should see real evolution occurring. It may not be easily observable, but once you accept the notion that DNA does mutate randomly, I don't see how this could result in anything but the natural process than we call "evolution" (a uselessy positive sounding term for a "neutral" process)

But I think she meant that this is the way it usually happens... That some bacterias for example always have some sort of resistance to all types of antibacteria lying dormant in their DNA. And THAT claim would require some documentation!

Apart from this, I find the whole argument of "information" creation and loss purposely misleading. It looks like if the person who wrote the piece was purposely trying to distract the reader from the facts by using very general words that can be used to form fake-logic propositions.

Yes, anti-evolutionists usually resort to dishonest argumentation, this time by attacking evolution based on something evolutionists have never said.

A bit like this: "Animals are living creatures, dogs are animals, dogs are therefore alive. This dead dog lying here is thus necessarily alive" The trick here is to use word alive with a certain freedom of interpretation, but calling evolution "an increase in information" is not much different. Why should the disappearence of body parts be a loss of information for example? I don't see the sentence "to be red" as containing necessarily less information than "to NOT be red". If you think of DNA as containing building instructions, or sentences, you should see what I mean...

Yes, both 0 and 1 carry meaningful information. Survival is the most important aspect (wings or no wings), but over time there is a trend towards more information (more complex organisms).

 

[cLavain]

This sure is a wild way of spending a Saturday night! 8)

 

[LA-girl]

Here are a few links to articles about antibiotics:

'Evolution' and acquired antibiotic resistance

Superbugs

Chapter2

Here is something else to pounder on:

Creationists used to bug dr. Jobe Martin (biologist), until a bug helped make Jobe Martin a creationist. Only half an inch long, the Bombardier Beetle may not be very big, but it helped chew great big holes in his long-held views on evolution. Or, more accurately, burn them.

For on closer inspection the modest beetle is a marvel of nature, a sort of six-legged tiny tank. It defends itself by mixing chemicals that explode; firing through twin tail tubes that can swivel like gun turrets. The bubbling liquid that shoots out at 212 degrees Fahrenheit is enough to deter most predators.

The force of the "round" fired should be enough to blast the little beetle into orbit,if not pieces, and it would be if it was discharged at one time. But slow motion photography has revealed that the crafty beetle actually lets go with a stream of up to 1,000 little explosions. Together they are enough to put off would-be attackers while leaving the small defender with its feet still on the ground.

As Martin marveled at the intricate design, he realized that there was simply no way the Bombardier Beetle could have evolved its sophisticated defense system over time, adding swiveling "gun barrels" or its "repeater" firing mechanism at different stages. It needed them all in one package, at the same time. A beetle that blew itself up would not be around to develop a more refined firing system. A beetle that could not keep the enemy in firing range would not survive to work on more maneuverable firepower. "There's simply no way a slow, gradual process will produce this beetle," says the former science major who, over a five-year, period made a complete about-face in his beliefs about the origins of the earth.

Then there's the woodpecker, whose rat-a-tat hunt for tree grubs should send it home each night with a mighty migraine. Instead it is studied by surgeons who want to learn more about head trauma in humans. The bird has a piece of cartilage that acts as a shock absorber and an extra-long tongue that can reach into the tree to pluck out its meal. It also has a glue factory that makes the bug stick until it is in the woodpecker's throat and produces another secretion to dissolve the glue on swallowing. Now, take a look at his tongue in the illustration below. As far as we know no other creature has a tongue like that? The design of the woodpecker is so unique, now how could a creature like the Woodpecker evolve, as far as I can see it could not, it had to be designed.

From: Incredicle creatures that defy evolution

cLavain wrote:

Yes, anti-evolutionists usually resort to dishonest argumentation

Here is btw a creationist view of many evolutionists:

SCIENTISTS HAVE A POOR RECORD FOR TRUTHFULNESS, AND A TRACK RECORD OF PURE FRAUD AND EXAGGERATION.

There is an awful lot of fraud by "Scientists" such as Piltdown Man and Neanderthal man in our search for our beginnings. Its a sad thing that "Scientists" are so fond of pulling a ridiculous arbitrary high number out of the air - as they seek to become famous and to "be the first". In many cases, no more than a piece of a jaw bone is found - which could just have well have been a monkey - but some "Scientist" will claim finding a million year old man or woman.

Steve Keohane

Clich here if you want to know more hear more about different lies and evolution hoaxes.

(Now this is starting to get ugly, but you sort of asked for it when you claiming anti-evolutionists or critiques as I would call it, for usually resorting to dishonest information.) :?

Consider this:

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And all this happened by an accident?

 

[cLavain]

Here are a few links to articles about antibiotics:

'Evolution' and acquired antibiotic resistance

Superbugs

Chapter2

If they have important information that could overturn the theory of evolution, then this information should be published for scientific peer review, which will ultimately decide if their theories hold water or not.

"There's simply no way a slow, gradual process will produce this beetle," says the former science major who, over a five-year, period made a complete about-face in his beliefs about the origins of the earth. [/color]

The design of the woodpecker is so unique, now how could a creature like the Woodpecker evolve, as far as I can see it could not, it had to be designed[/b].[/color]

Both are what Richard Dawkins calls "arguments of personal incredulity". Just because these people can not understand something doesn't mean it cannot be explained.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html

Do bombardier beetles look designed? Yes; they look like they were designed by evolution. Their features, behaviors, and distribution nicely fit the kinds of patterns that evolution creates. Nobody has yet found anything about any bombardier beetle which is incompatible with evolution.

This does not mean, of course, that we know everything about the evolution of bombardier beetles; far from it. But the gaps in our knowledge should not be interpreted as meaningful in themselves. Some people are apparently uncomfortable with the idea of uncertainty, so uncomfortable that they try to turn the unknown into the unknowable. There has never been any evidence that bombardier beetles could not have evolved, but just because they couldn't explain exactly how the beetles evolved, lots of people jumped to the conclusion that an explanation was impossible. In fact, their conclusion says a lot more about themselves than about the beetles. To make such a conclusion based only on a lack of knowledge is a kind of arrogance.

Now this is starting to get ugly...

Speak for yourself. I'm not that easily offended. Btw, if there was "an awful lot of fraud by scientists", would we have progressed this far? Science is self-correcting. There is a mountain of evidence that supports evolution, but creationists keep ignoring this and repeat ad nauseam the same old arguments that have been refuted so many times. Science is about finding a theory that fits the facts, creationism is about finding facts that fit the theory. If there is real evidence out there that disproves evolution then evolution theory will have to go. It's that simple. There is no vast conspiracy holding creationism down.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And all this happened by an accident?

How is this relevant to evolution?

Accident? Who knows, but consider this: There are billions of suns in billions of galaxies in the universe. New planets are found orbiting nearby suns all the time. What is the total number of planets in the universe!? No one knows, but the chance of a "perfect" planet such as Earth being formed is probably quite high. But some people would prefer to believe in an old bearded man waving his hand and creating it in six days, of course. That's not my problem, unless they tell me that this guy's rules should apply to everyone.

 

[LA-girl]

I have a hard time believing that all scientists are a bunch of neutral "robots" who are only searching for the truth. Everybody keeps saying that creationists are biased, but as far as I can tell evolutionists are too, as they have to explain everything with the conclusion that there is no designer. Everybody is human, every scientist is human and have their glasses in terms of how they observe things whether it is atheists, christians, hinduists etc... Now it is true that science is of major importance in terms of conquering disease etc, so my problem is not science per se, but it does upset me when evolutionists claim their theory to be proved and a fact when in fact it is not. It still remains just a theory.

But some people would prefer to believe in an old bearded man waving his hand and creating it in six days, of course.

LOL! Well you got the last part right at least! :wink:

 

[LA-girl]

That's probably completely true, but why does this "truth" whose traces are left in the bible, have to be referring to aliens...I mean it could be anything! The universal flood could be in reality the formation of the caspian sea, the plural "Gods" could be as I said a remnant of politheism, the migration from egypt a historical fact...
Think of the Iliad, after 3000 years somebody took the trouble to investigate and found that there had been an ancient walled city in the location where Troy could be expected to be, and there had been a siege, probably by greek warlords, for the sake of controlling the narrow sea strait allowing ships into the black sea. Add some imagination and you have the Iliad. Couldn't the bible be simply a collection of such "pieces" of historical events, filtered through some imagination? Why taking the trouble of putting aliens into the picture?

Or could it simply be that the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation really is Gods word? If so it would make sense that God would provide some kind of "evidence." Some people refer to feelings, miracles, healings etc when trying to convince people that the christian God exists. But wouldn't it make sense that God would at least provide some "evidences" in His holy book? Now, if there existed no such things as "evidence-material", the Christian-religion would be no more than blind faith and the Bible would only be a book that had some historical relevance to it, as many believe and also you, as you stated.
But just because you and many others regards the Bible in that way, doesn't mean that is the case. Have you ever read the Bible or tried to examine the reliability of it?

(When I say evidences here I do not mean absolute proofs, as nobody can prove the existence of God)

 

[dzerklis]

The Earth[/size] is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day. [/color]

And all this happened by an accident?

Yeah, also, if you look at the Moon, it looks like someones put it there on purpose, in its orbit, it perfectly covers the Sun when theres an eclipse. I dont believe its just a coincidence. Someones responsible for it all..

:wink:

 

[LA-girl]

Yeah, also, if you look at the Moon, it looks like someones put it there on purpose, in its orbit, it perfectly covers the Sun when theres an eclipse. I dont believe its just a coincidence. Someones responsible for it all..
:wink:

Yes, i agree to me it is unthinkable that all just happened by accident. For instance when Darwin, "the father of evolution" wrote the Origin of Species, he had no idea of how complexed a cell really is, as they did not have the fine-tuned microscopes they have now.

A modern doctor recently said that: One single cell of life is far more complicated than New York at rush hour!
I mean what are the chances of that happening by accident?

According to Britain's Sir Fred Hoyle:

Conditions for the beginning of life demand many billions of minute involved circum-stances that must appear absolutely simultaneously in the same infinitesimal moment.

 

[cLavain]

I mean what are the chances of that happening by accident?[/b]

Oh, but LA-girl, it is NOT by chance!

Can you build the Empire State Building by throwing a lot of bricks and steel beams together? NO!

Can you build the Empire State Building by starting from the ground, laying one brick on top of the other? YES!



When someone looks at something as complex as the human eye for instance, it is no wonder that they say, "it is so complex, this must be designed!". But when you consider that this complex organ perhaps started as a simple molecule that could catch one photon, it is no longer so improbable. Being able to "see" one photon may have been enough for a simple creature to survive, then further down the line, a mutation caused it to "see" more photons which was an improvement. This process continues, very slowly, perhaps with occasional setbacks, but if better vision is advantageous to the creature then at some point you might have a fully functioning eye, like us. It's called cumulative selection, and it's not accidental at all.

 

[LA-girl]

I mean what are the chances of that happening by accident?[/b]

Oh, but LA-girl, it is NOT by chance!

Now I don't know if the definition of evolution has changed in recent years (or maybe I was half-asleep during biology-class) :wink: but isn't it true that the concept of evolution is that everything has evolved from one cell?
It was this "first" cell I was talking about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

When evolutionists refer to early life, they often use the phrase "a simple cell". This infers that some cells are very primitive and consist of only a few chemicals. They are often drawn as a shapeless lump with a black splodge in the middle to represent the nucleus.

In actual fact, ALL cells are extremely complicated - even the "earliest". Scientists have hardly begun to unravel the inner workings of any cell. The complexity of the DNA double helix spiral is just one indication of the problems facing them. They have not even started to try to bridge the huge gap between the information contained within the cell and the complete organism visible at birth.

There is no such thing as a "simple cell".

http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/cell.htm

P.S! I only need one more post and I get my third star!!! :mrgreen:

 

[Quixote]

I mean what are the chances of that happening by accident?[/b]

Oh, but LA-girl, it is NOT by chance!

Now I don't know if the definition of evolution has changed in recent years (or maybe I was half-asleep during biology-class) :wink: but isn't it true that the concept of evolution is that everything has evolved from one cell?

Well the first cell eventually joined others and started to cooperate, forming multicellular beings. It would be hard to imagine a single cell evolving into an animal indeed..

Yeah, also, if you look at the Moon, it looks like someones put it there on purpose, in its orbit, it perfectly covers the Sun when theres an eclipse. I dont believe its just a coincidence. Someones responsible for it all..

Yes and if you throw a handful of dice, say eight of them, and write down on a piece of paper the numbers you get, in a row, you will have a sequence in the end which has a probability of occurring of just 1/1679616. And if you repeat the experiment, again the sequence you get, whatever it is, only had a probability of less than one in a million...How is that, so many incredibly unprobable events happening all of a sudden! Can it all be a matter of chance? Yes indeed! :lol:

 

[cLavain]

isn't it true that the concept of evolution is that everything has evolved from one cell?

No, a cell is far too complex to form spontaneously, even given the insane number of atoms and molecules bumping against each other across the universe at all times. What is more probable is that the first form of "life" was nothing more than a self-replicating molecule, a very simple first version of modern DNA. It would have been an extremely simple collection of atoms, but with one crucial ability, it could make copies of itself. Having that ability would give it a chance to spread widely, and improved versions might be formed later on through mistakes (mutations!).

Oh, and congratulations on your third star! Well earned, soldier! :wink:

 

[Quixote]

isn't it true that the concept of evolution is that everything has evolved from one cell?

No, a cell is far too complex to form spontaneously, even given the insane number of atoms and molecules bumping against each other across the universe at all times. What is more probable is that the first form of "life" was nothing more than a self-replicating molecule, a very simple first version of modern DNA. It would have been an extremely simple collection of atoms, but with one crucial ability, it could make copies of itself. Having that ability would give it a chance to spread widely, and improved versions might be formed later on through mistakes (mutations!).

Oh, and congratulations on your third star! Well earned, soldier! :wink:

I think I heard sometime that it could have been a simple protein...not sure at all though, I'm not too much into biology honestly.

But I see we interpreted LA girl's question in two different ways, was it about how can a cell evolve into a complex individual, or how could a cell be formed in the first place?

Anyway, it doesn't matter really

 

[LA-girl]

But I see we interpreted LA girl's question in two different ways, was it about how can a cell evolve into a complex individual, or how could a cell be formed in the first place?

The question was; how could a cell be formed in the first place, yes.

Anyway, it doesn't matter really

Ahh....yes it really does! :wink:

cLavain wrote:

Oh, and congratulations on your third star! Well earned, soldier!

Yay, I just noticed! Thank you sir!!