Science has proven that life only comes from life,
As we've stated in other threads, science has
observed that life comes from life. As a scientist in training, you should know that observation does not warrant proof. It speaks for the great probability that all life comes from other life, however in light of recent discoveries, that theory is being called into question.
there is no instance of an observation by scientist that life occurs as the result of natural chemistry. this is repeatably proven and observed,
I posted this entire article for you elsewhere. Here we go again:
From
www.talkorigins.com
"Despite many arguments, largely theoretical but with some experimental work, spontaneous generation remained a viable option for the origins of life - for abiogenesis - but it was a very confused field. What caused it to change and become focused was the publication on 23 April 1953 of Crick and Watson's
Nature paper on the structure of DNA. Three weeks later, a graduate student at the University of Chicago named
Stanley Miller published a paper in
Science, on 15 May, entitled "A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions". Miller was a doctoral student of Nobel laureate
Harold C. Urey (a chemist who discovered deuterium), after he heard a lecture by Urey in which he noted in passing that earth's primordial hydrogen-rich (reducing) atmosphere would have been favourable for the formation of simple organic molecules. {Schopf 123} He decided, with Urey's permission, to test this, assuming an atmosphere of molecular hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and water vapour (H2O). Neither Urey nor Miller knew at this point that this was in line with Oparin's hypothesis, but as he prepared for the experiments, Miller read Oparin and mulled it over, along with Urey's hypotheses on the formation of the solar system. {
Schopf 125}
He passed the atmosphere through a glass retort, continuously cycling it for several days, while exposing it to heat, electrical arcing, and cooling. After two days, the "ocean" (a flask of water through which the gases were passed) became pale yellow, and on analysis this turned out to be glycine, the simplest amino acid. They repeated the experiment for a week, and in the final yellow-brown solution, Miller detected seven amino acids, including three (glycine, anine and aspartic acid) found in modern living systems. In a period of three and a half months, Miller had confirmed Urey's and Oparin's hypotheses on the formation of the precursor molecules of life.
The claim was never that life had been made, but only that the necessary molecules for life could form spontaneously. Since Wöhler
synthesised urea in 1828, this was becoming an inevitable conclusion - the molecular nature of life was more and more widely accepted and applied. Now there was no need to think that organic molecules had to come from organic systems. Later experiments use a more realistic atmosphere, replacing methane with carbon monoxide or dioxide (CO or CO2), or ammonia with molecular nitrogen (N2), with similar results.
An alternative to the Oparin-Miller model was proposed by
Günter Wächtershäuser, who suggested that carbon oxides released from deep sea vents could stabilise on iron-sulphates, reacting with molecular hydrogen to form organic monomers (simple molecular units) from which life could form. Others have included the roles of clay substrates as catalytic templates for molecules to form on before there were genes, the formation of organic molecules in space (now well-established) seeding the early earth, and a formal model by
Manfred von Eigen of how chemical reactions might generate copies of themselves - the hypercycle.
Sidney Fox successfully synthesised coascervate "cells" (a coascervate is a mixture of colloids that can, like lipids in modern cells, form a layer that will enclose molecules, but which can allow monomers to pass across it). These will, under some conditions, divide as they "grow" to form new cells."
Lisa63 said:
what other creature is not perfectly adapted to its environment to the point of needing artificial coverings to survive?
Pretty much every animal and insect there is. It's called, 'shelter'.
Lisa63 said:
Bipedalism is also not preferred over quadrupeds, the best adaptation is those creatures that are quarduped with the ability to biped as needed (bears, prarie dogs, etc.) and an assumption that bipedalism could become preferred over a combination is logically not realistic.
these last 2 items I have discussed with several respected biologists and they have agreed that it makes no sense from thier standpoint either so I assume there is no evidence that these mutations could increase the survivability of the creature that is alledged to have become us.
This is of course spoken under the assumption that the 'purpose' of evolution is to improve. This is not so. In a word, evolution means 'change', not 'improvement.' There are many disadvantages which come with bipedalism, such as lack of speed, etc., however there are also many advantages, such as the
opposable thumb. Ah yes, with the exception of the dolphin, almost every animal species which is partial to higher intelligence has opposable thumbs, and bipedal tendencies.
If mice were bipedal, their susequent lack of speed would make them easy prey for cats. Luckily, we have something which mice don't--greater intelligence. Is it still unclear to you how some animals can survive being bipedal?
