Notices
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: How life on earth exist?

  1. #1 How life on earth exist? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    32
    Do u ever thinking how the life on earth exist? do u think it is so coincident it happened from big bang theory or volcanic activity found on earth?asteriod strike and lighting caused life to exist? the accidental combination of all element together to form DNA and human? millions lifes on earth born from single cell molecule?

    the life on earth is too complicated to happen in chances. even nowadays scientist can't even create a single cell molecule given all the element and resource. Even single cell molecule has a very complicated function itself,needless to say other higher primates.. human anatomy has millions of individual function. there is no coincident.

    there are 2 answer. one is GOD that create us. Or other options is from alien create us, but there must be some one that create alien in the first place. in other word there must a creator behind us that create human and life on earth. no need to argue, it is definite answer. no need to waste resource to search for answer.

    even God has planned your entire life. He hold your lifetime diary, life, death, good or bad luck he had written down even before you are born! believe me or not? think about it.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    63
    No,no,no, don't you read National Geographic, we evolved from rock soup!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: How life on earth exist? 
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by albert chong
    there are 2 answer. one is GOD that create us. Or other options is from alien create us, but there must be some one that create alien in the first place. in other word there must a creator behind us that create human and life on earth. no need to argue, it is definite answer. no need to waste resource to search for answer.
    no - you're creating a false dichotomy : i could for instance state that the appearance of life on earth was pure organic chemistry
    for anyone with a basic understanding of chemistry it is clear that many chemical reactions don't take place until you get the conditions for the reaction spot on

    so another possible explanation for why scientist have so far been unable to recreate life on earth is that they're still searching for the correct combination of ingredients (of which there are many)
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    603
    Urey/Miller experiments. Weren't their results and methods enough to show promise that nonorganics can lead to organics? Wasn't their research revisited recently?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    63
    No, not even close, and yes it was revisited, and they're still lying about the results.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by mastmec
    No, not even close, and yes it was revisited, and they're still lying about the results.
    Really? What Empirical evidence do you have that anyone has lied about this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by mastmec
    No, not even close, and yes it was revisited, and they're still lying about the results.
    I agree that popular reports of the Miller-Urey experiments tend to exaggerate the significance of the results. As far as I am aware the research papers in this area all speak of the creation of prebiotic chemicals, necessary for life, in a variety of environments. I don't think any of the original research claims anything more than this. I have certainly seen popular accounts that suggest this is more than half way towards life, but that's the press, not the scientists.
    Like Paleocihium I should like to learn of where you think the original researchers have lied.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    603
    Protenoid microspheres was the result, if I recall correctly. They take up other microspheres until they get too big, then the split. Perhaps I'm a liar though, or just misinformed.


    I am glad someone called that guy out for just writing it off as lies so I didn't have to do it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    It is important to understand the firstly, a lot of things can happen by chance. The tossed coin may fall heads, purely due to chance. The roulette ball may roll on any number, purely by chance. A whole host of natural occurrences may create an organism, purely by chance.

    Life on Earth is too complicated because it has spent several millenia evolving. Creating a single cell molecule is difficult purely because there are so many different combinations that chance managed to achieve.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    32
    prove it that non-life transform into life matter first then i believe in you...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    I will do just that for you.

    Imagine an atom, surrounded by billions of other atoms. It forms molecules with some of them, in turn forming even more molecules. This process goes on forever and ever.

    But then suppose a chance event occurs. Suppose lightning struck, and the atoms were excited. In that single chance encounter, the atoms formed different molecules, randomly, in just the right way to form the atoms of DNA.

    You must agree that DNA is the base of life. And here you have it: DNA at its simplest, admittedly, but still there.

    An atom is non-living. Combine it in the right way and you get DNA, or life. Add a few more and you develop the organism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    603
    Liongold that isn't an absolute proof but one doesn't exist right now anyways.

    This man is asking for incontrovertable evidence that life sprang up from nonlife. Furthermore, even if an absolute proof existed, you wouldn't be able to convince him otherwise I'd say.

    I'd suggest the burden is on those refuting claims, as scientific method is based on disproof rather than proofs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    You're right, mormoopid. Scientific method is based on disproof more than proof.

    And it's not an exact proof; it's merely a way to picture how an atom could form DNA. However, thanks for replying.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    You must agree that DNA is the base of life. And here you have it: DNA at its simplest, admittedly, but still there.

    An atom is non-living. Combine it in the right way and you get DNA, or life. Add a few more and you develop the organism.

    No kidding man... DNA is NOT simple. it is much more complicated than every pieces of engineering on earth added together.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    You astound me. If DNa is so complicated, how come we can produce it so easily in laboroatory conditions? No, the real problem is getting trhe right kind of genes in order to construct a working organism.

    By the way, Time Magazine announced in its Inventions of the Year special that a scientist had managed to achieve just this: create an organism. It is very simple, but there were more than 500,000 DNA strands to splice together, so in that way he was taking on an extremely huge challenge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    603
    and once again the smallest flicker of hope for this thread is snuffed out
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    All right, fine, I'll stop trying to argue with him if that's what you want. I only wish people would listen to reason, instead of blindly putting forward their beliefs. There's nothing wrong with that, just that they should be willing to listen to logic and reason and make changes where that dictates.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    603
    thus is the folly of 90% of the world. This guy is seriously a hardcore troll on more than one site.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4
    future will prove who is right and wrong... don't hurry
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    Superiorgod, that has got to be the worst statement to be said. How can the future show who's right if we're not around to see it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •