Level of Proof for Evolution

A self-replicating molecule is many time simpler than a single celled organism. I think you lost me at this point, if you don't understand that, you really need to read up about it first.
 
Reiku, You clearly stated that a molecule is more complex than single celled life. Are you now
a) denying you said that.
b) denying you meant that.
c) waffling.
 
I mean i meant something else. I am a bit drunk, so please except i made a mistake in the way i worded something.
 
spidergoat said:
A self-replicating molecule is many time simpler than a single celled organism. I think you lost me at this point, if you don't understand that, you really need to read up about it first.
Click to expand...

I misunderstood you. I thought you where talking about a more complex molecular organism. I will go back, and say, ''how can a seemingly dead matter create a living mobile matter from amino acids?''
 
I don't deny that. But life is complex, so complex we haven't observed this 100% consideration Spider talks of. If it was, we would see it everyday in the lab.
 
Non-living, is a material that requires a force from another system to move it. A living material, is one that is considered a mobile mass, one that moves independantly of any other force.
 
Reiku said:
I don't deny that. But life is complex, so complex we haven't observed this 100% consideration Spider talks of. If it was, we would see it everyday in the lab.
Click to expand...

What we now call life is complex, moreover it eats anything that would look like a precursor to it. The origins of life lie in pre-animate chemistry. I gave you a link that talked about such pre-animate life being experimented with in the lab. There was an experiment that proved evolution works with bare RNA, outside of the organism in which it was found.
 
What do you want me to say?

My original point was, is that by countless experiments, and by recreating the similar conditiions found in the stormy sea, we have no evidence of an evolution, from its most simplest single celled background.
 
Reiku, how long have we as humans been performing these experiments? 50, 60 years? And have we really performed them countless times?

The probability is low enough that we may never spontaneously create life in a lab, but that doesn't mean the creation of life from non-life can't have happened over billions of years, with perhaps trillions of chemical reactions happening in the ocean at any given second.
 
Idle Mind said:
Reiku, how long have we as humans been performing these experiments? 50, 60 years? And have we really performed them countless times?

The probability is low enough that we may never spontaneously create life in a lab, but that doesn't mean the creation of life from non-life can't have happened over billions of years, with perhaps trillions of chemical reactions happening in the ocean at any given second.
Click to expand...

A mathematician and physicist once said it wasn't in comparrision that time takes to make these things. As they said, ''any respectable mathematician knows its nonesense.''
 
The people you have quoted, such as your favourite Dr. Wolf, are not respectable mathematicians. So what now? Why would time not be a factor?
 
Why not contact Dr Wolf, at his homepage. My e-mail is down at the moment, so you would be doing me a honor.
 
You are also completely overlooking the fact, touched on by spidergoat, but inadequately appreciated by most, that the ancient seas were a dense concentrations of pre-biotic molecules. This wasn't a warm little pond as you imagine it today, this was wall to wall chemicals.Much if not most of the carbon today is non-organic and is tied up in carbonates. That was not the case at the dawn of life.
 
We can simulate such conditions. if we can create bose-einstein conditions, we can simulate the possible conditions in an ocean, easily.
 
But not on the scale that is the ocean, unfortunately. That is absolutely key in this whole thought experiment.
 
You cannot simulate the volume or the time. Is that so difficult for you to understand, that the difference between the ancient environment and the lab environment in terms of number of potental reactions is many, many orders of magnitude different. You claim to have an interest in science - this point shouldn't even have to be explained to you. Do a back of the envelope calculation - a large lab container for one year, versus the top 15 metres of the oceans for five million years. Tell me how many orders of magnitude difference that is?
 
The scale is challenged. It seems that is doesn't matter when these clases are measured, because the improbabity is still astronomical. Please talk to Dr Wolf.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top