Why is there such similarity in all Earth life forms?

[Roman]

Prions are not alive, they are just proteins.
Viruses.. well, that's still debated.

That was Yorda's point- they function in many ways as life, but fail to meet the general criteria for life, and as such, aren't classified as life. He, however, does not make the distinction.

It's like saying "I think some dogs are mean." And you say, "what sorts of dogs?" "Oh, I don't know," I reply, "I think dobermans can be mean." And you say "No, Dobermans are not mean, try again."

 

[Enmos]

That was Yorda's point- they function in many ways as life, but fail to meet the general criteria for life, and as such, aren't classified as life. He, however, does not make the distinction.

It's like saying "I think some dogs are mean." And you say, "what sorts of dogs?" "Oh, I don't know," I reply, "I think dobermans can be mean." And you say "No, Dobermans are not mean, try again."

Roman, no.. I don't think Yorda even knows the difference between DNA and RNA.
Check out Yorda's posts: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83669

 

[buckybeam]

That's called the Cosmic Watchmaker Theory. We don't yet have persuasive evidence to refute it. So far all we have is indirect evidence: if the universe was once a point mass of infinite density and temperature, life could not yet have existed, therefore abiogenesis must have taken place. It's more evidence than the theists have so it's a far more reasonable hypothesis to bet on, but it's hardly a canonical theory yet. Once we crack the mystery of abiogenesis we'll be on more solid ground.

ok not trying to be argumentative but, im not using the "cosmic watchmaker therory" (CWT in case i use that term again). that theory is trying to prove the existence of god due to the fact that the universe is so complex it must have been created by a universe maker, a god or supreme being. i understand the point you are making. i dont think that you understood the point i was making.

How curious that someone so intelligent as to be able to create life is so unimaginative as to do it the same way over and over again! If I had just gotten done inventing amphibians, I can assure you that my next project would not be reptiles.

first off that is very insulting statement. i would never suggest to Muslim that Allah sleeps with dogs and drinks the blood of pigs. so i would also not suggest that god is a very boring and not very creative person and doesn't make fair use of his/her intelligence. either statement is very insulting to religious people and unnecessary.

my statement is as it is. the universe has rules. if the universe was created by a supreme being then that being would have also had to have created the rules. its those rules that all life must follow unless otherwise noted (haha), we seem to be discovering new rules. from a religious perspective the idea does exist that when the world was created evolution was also. this can be somewhat linked to in the bible, as far fetched as it may seem. the story of Adam has him being created from mud, abiogenesis, life from nonliving matter.

now your statement concerning the big bang. ok, now im just being a jerk and getting way off subject. infinite density and infinite energy? to suggest infinite density is to suggest infinite space to compress. first law of thermodynamics says energy cannot be created or destroyed, where has this infinite energy gone? i think that quantum mechanics has quieted the infinite density theory?

now you state that life could not exist before the big bang. im just a bit confused. are you suggesting that a supreme being could not exist before the big bang?

or, my first pick, should i take it at face value that life on earth/other life bearing planets, could not have existed in this universe before the big bang?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

ok not trying to be argumentative but, im not using the "cosmic watchmaker theory". . . . that theory is trying to prove the existence of god due to the fact that the universe is so complex it must have been created by a universe maker, a god or supreme being.

No, sorry if I misrepresented it. It's not an argument that claims to present evidence for the existence of a god. Its point is that whether or not the universe was created by a god is irrelevant now, because that god wound it up and has just been sitting there watching it for entertainment for the last twelve billion years. He has no intention of intervening in its functioning because he wants to see what happens. So god or no god, the result is the same: the universe is completely under the control of the natural laws that we are steadily discovering and we're on our own.

first off that is very insulting statement. i would never suggest to Muslim that Allah sleeps with dogs and drinks the blood of pigs. so i would also not suggest that god is a very boring and not very creative person and doesn't make fair use of his/her intelligence. either statement is very insulting to religious people and unnecessary.

As a scientist, if for the sake of argument I entertain the hypothesis that Allah is real and not mythological, I nonetheless have no evidence to suggest that he drinks pig blood. Although I suppose I do have evidence to suggest that he sleeps with dogs since I do, as most humans have done for the past 15,000 years, and we were supposedly made in his image.

But I do have evidence that, if a god invented life, then he was not very imaginative, because even from my un-godlike perspective the paradigm of terrestrial life is rather narrow.

my statement is as it is. the universe has rules. if the universe was created by a supreme being then that being would have also had to have created the rules. its those rules that all life must follow

I understand that. I'm just saying that the rules look rather boring even from my perspective as a mere mortal. I can't understand why someone with the power to make the rules in the first place wouldn't have given them more variety. Obviously I expect that when we finally discover life on another planet it will exhibit that variety, but most evolution denialists are hoping they won't live to see that day.

now your statement concerning the big bang. ok, now im just being a jerk and getting way off subject. infinite density and infinite energy?

Sorry, I didn't stop to review that sentence. I meant to say infinite temperature, since a non-zero amount of energy was crammed into an infinitesimal mass.

i think that quantum mechanics has quieted the infinite density theory?

I don't keep up with this stuff since my days as a former future scientist ended 45 years ago. It sounds to me like the Big Bang theory must then be on shaky ground.

now you state that life could not exist before the big bang. im just a bit confused. are you suggesting that a supreme being could not exist before the big bang? or, my first pick, should i take it at face value that life on earth/other life bearing planets, could not have existed in this universe before the big bang?

To be precise, I graph time on a log scale and there's no such thing as "before the Big Bang." It's Absolute Zero time just like we have Absolute Zero temperature. I think if they ever come up with coherent math for studying events "before the Big Bang," they'll discover that all the numbers are imaginary, just like if you hypothesize matter at a temperature below Absolute Zero.

There's no reason to suppose that time actually passes in the universe in the manner we subjectively experience it passing with our senses, during our extremely short stay in that universe. Who's to say it didn't pass more slowly at the beginning? The further back you go, the slower it gets, so that you never quite get to Absolute Zero. Transforming the graph of time doesn't affect any of the laws of nature since they can all be transformed right along with it. All it does is give us another perspective on the burning question of the Big Bang.